<p>I wouldn’t have near the animosity toward personal injury lawyers if they were paid on a fee or hourly basis instead of the percentage basis most work on. They go for the big settlements–not to help the “poor”, they up the antes to line their own pockets. When I hire a lawyer to handle other legal issues, he is paid a agreed upon fee.</p>
<p>“This drain lawsuit hammered the drain cover manufacturer for $25 million in an injury caused because the drain cover HAD BEEN REMOVED.”</p>
<p>Yup, and the removal of the drain covers (since drains get stuffed up) was foreseeable, and not only was it foreseeable, it had happened in 12 other cases that wouldn’t have come to light if it wasn’t for John Edwards.</p>
<p>Sta-Rite is still in business. But there haven’t been any children sucked down their drains since. There was a technological fix, but one the company would have refused to implement if it wasn’t for John Edwars.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have no problem whatsoever with people charging a fee for their services. I don’t expect my doctor to treat me for free, restaurants to comp me, taxi drivers to turn off the meter, the hairdresser to stay on her own time to trim my hair or the grocer to give me food for nothing. </p>
<p>It sounds like a lot of work went into this case, especially proving the manufacturer’s negligence by finding other victims. Had Edwards lost, all of that work, work by employees, expert witnesses, court reporters for depositions, etc., would have come out of his or his firm’s pocket and not his clients’.</p>
<p>I don’t think that Edwards’ achievement should have an asterisk after it just because he and the family agreed he should be paid for his work. I don’t hear anyone expecting the child’s doctor to treat her for free or the medical supply company to send her free cases of alimentary supplies.</p>
<p>I don’t think anyone believes that they should work for free, but the way the system is set up personal injury lawyers are encouraged (financially) to go after the deep pockets and not even necessarily the true ones at fault. Also why not go for the mega million dollars settlements–more for them? Somehow government has stepped in and decided exactly how much a physician should be reimbursed for a procedure (sometimes not even covering cost), but cap lawyer fees?–hasn’t happened yet.</p>
<p>If we start capping fees, let’s look at the salaries of the corporate yahoos, and their multi million dollar bonuses. Let’s look at the Exxons, the Halliburtons, and the stock holders and CEOs who have made out like bandits from the war machine. But we needn’t stop there, since there are plenty of non-war machine corporations where the salaries are utterly outrageous. And some of these people are whining about raising the minimum wage a dollar or two. </p>
<p>If we want to go after people’s individual fees or salaries, I’d suggest we look far beyond personal injury lawyers. Their are plenty of people earning outrageous sums of money. Would you like to cap their salaries too? Or is it just Edwards?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not aware that the government has placed any limit on what physicians can charge for their services. My understanding is that they only limit what they as insurers will pay. Doctors are free to make whatever arrangements they want, when the government isn’t a party to the transaction, just as lawyers are.</p>
<p>If a physician accepts medicare/medicaid that is all he/she will receive. Also if they are a provider for that insurance (whichever private the patient has) they must accept that reimbursement and may not bill the patient for any over.</p>
<p>I think that a $10 million payoff to personal injury attorneys is at the Robber Baron level. As far as stock brokers and CEO’s are concerned, I’m not aware of any that are currently running for President.</p>
<p>It just seems comical for Edwards to spout off about “two Americas” when he’s clearly on the high end of that spectrum.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is absolutely not true in the case of private insurance. Patients pay over and above what their insurance does all the time. Where on earth did you get this idea from?</p>
<p>And physicians have the right to refuse to accept insurance assignment if they don’t like the rates, including Medicaid and Medicare. </p>
<p>The government can cap what it will pay when it’s the insurer just like if it hires a lawyer.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Comical for a wealthy person to be concerned about economic inequity in society? I guess by that logic, all those men who voted to give women the franchise were ludicrous.</p>
<p>Conyat is 100% right. Patients are refused treatment if the can only offer Medicare or Medicaid. Doctors can charge whatever they want, and patients are responsible for the difference between the fee and the insurance reimbursement.</p>
<p>“It just seems comical for Edwards to spout off about “two Americas” when he’s clearly on the high end of that spectrum.”</p>
<p>I don’t see why. You think that rich people shouldn’t give a damn about anyone else? I care about government policies that affect a lot of groups I’m not a member of. I guess I can’t vote for Medicaid, since I’ll never need it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The cover was removed by children playing with the drain in the pool, children whose parents were apparently not watching them.</p>
<p>The technological fix was embossing the words DO NOT REMOVE on the covers…a fix that would have presumably stopped the children from removing it.</p>
<p>The company had no choice but to settle for $25 million. State law provided for treble punative damages on top of that.</p>
<p>No thanks. I’ll pass on the ambulance chaser for President.</p>
<p>Sjmom–I know of both Republicans and Democrats who are actively involved in their churches, do charitable work, etc. No argument there. … When you say “personal injury lawyer,” I immediately think of those bottom-feeders that advertise on afternoon television. I’m certain that Edwards is not one of those guys. (He reminds me more of an idealistic John Grisham lawyer, who actually does some good. But that’s just me.) … As for his building a mansion, well … That’s not what I would choose to do with my money, but to each his own. Bill Gates has an obscenely huge home, yet manages to do some fine philanthropical things with at least some of his billions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s exactly what he is. He just uses more hairspray and lives in a bigger house. Ambulance chasin’ has been very, very good to John Edwards.</p>
<p>Whatever they did, there hasn’t been a single incident or death since. Now THAT is effective.</p>
<p>And the company did NOT settle for $25 million. A unanimous jury, deliberating for three full days, under a very strict jury instruction, found them LIABLE for $25 million. </p>
<p>This is the kind of guy I’d want working for me. But as Pres? Well, compared to the liar who had this point in his career was wining and dining fatcats in a high rollers’ baseball box, it is a huge record of accomplishment.</p>
<p>But that ain’t saying much.</p>
<p>Give me some examples of how Edwards chased ambulances.</p>
<p>InterrestedDad, anyone who bases their opinion of the outcome of a case on a two or three paragraph description of “facts” provided by an interested party is foolish. The same people who fell for the Mike Nifong publicity barrage in the Duke rape case are subject to being bamboozled by the manufacturer’s PR in tort cases. It is wise to be skeptical. The fact that the defendants chose to settle rather than appeal speaks volumes for their assessment of the legal sufficiency of their position. Do you honestly think they’d hand out $25M in a case that lacked merit? Are you aware that the vast majority of judges in this country are either former DA’s or former corporate/insurance defense lawyers? If the defendants settleed for $25M they had good reason to do so - just as they have good reason to mount a PR campaign to convince you that they’re victims.</p>
<p>You might be on their next jury.</p>
<p>P.S. Mini - the jury did award $25M, but the company settled for that sum rather than appeal or face the possibility of punitive damages. That’s why there was no appeal.</p>
<p>No appeal. But it was a jury decision, not an agreement to keep damages from being found.</p>
<p>AND, all the pool drain covers were retrofitted.</p>
<p>Am I to believe interesteddad, that you don’t think people have the right to be compensated for horrific medical malpractice or gross negligence? I read a synopsis of Edwards’ legal cases from over the years, and not one of them appeared to be a whimsical, let’s rip-off the other guy plot. Unless you consider birth-related injuries, including severe brain damage and cerebral palsy due to major medical screw-ups, “ambulance-chasing” schemes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I never said that. If you’ve read some of the detail of the Edwards cases, not only was there no gross negligence, but the science shows that doing a hair-trigger C-Section doesn’t make any difference – that the birth defects are hereditary.</p>
<p>I believe that our current health care system is burdened by defensive medicine and taking the judgement out of the hands of the person best able to make it – the well-trained physician. I believe that ambulance chasers like John Edwards are a major reason for this problem.</p>
<p>Hey, I’m not saying don’t vote for him. I’m just saying that I can’t. I think my reason as just as valid as those who applaud his impassioned speeches about two Americas.</p>