Replies

In Texas we can argue the Golden Rule, but I don't. We can't ask the jury to put themselves in the shoes of the parties, which is basically what I did to shrinkermd, who has yet to respond.

What can be done in an actual trial is vastly different from what can be done on a website. shrinkmd made a statement which I asked him to apply to himself and his family as a test of his sincerity. That's fair.

Why do you say that $25 million shocks the conscience? Have you ever seen what a hemorrhagic stroke can do to a person? I have. Do you know what the proven damages were? I don't.

Of course, you know that the $25 million is just a verdict not a judgment. There's a big difference.

As to your statement that we don't need tort reform, we need jury reform, I disagree. We need certain types of tort reform such as for class actions and products liability. I don't know what type of "jury reform" you advocate, but I think that juries do they job reasonably well most of the time and many erroneous jury verdicts are attributable to flawed jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

I will respond. I practiced medicine for over 40 years and was never sued. The reason was simple--psychiatrists are seldom sued.

I don't know why you are so upset with people doubting the necessity of 25 million for a stroke. Why not 250 million or 500 billion?

There will be tort reform, but when is unclear. In the meantime, everyone should review their state's Worker's Compensation plan. In Minnesota you pay insurance with the understanding if your employees are injured your insurance pays according to a table and the decision of an Administrative Law Judge. Without this provision no one would hire anyone in Minnesota. Incidentally, the plan pays for the plaintiff's lawyers on an hourly basis.

Eventually, medicine and other private service providers will have a similar plan. It makes sense and it is fair.

It will happen when the surgical sub-specialties leave private practice because they can no longer afford the premiums. In the meantime rudeness and ad hominem attacks are not permitted in court and should not be part of FR. I leave you to judge who is rude and who calls names.

Neither I or my family would agree to such an outrageous settlement. Past, present and future medical and other costs plus a percentage (30%) for pain and suffering would be sufficient.

Why do you say that $25 million shocks the conscience?

I have been working in the civil jury trial business for 20 years an I have not seen the case that is worth that much. I have seen worse than hemorragic stroke - parts of the body removed, organs extruded out of the body, open wounds, quadraplegia, ect. I have never seen a life care plan that amounts to $20 mln., which is about the only thing that would make this verdict reasonable. This is just a sentiment - and it is personal to me.

As to your statement that we don't need tort reform, we need jury reform, I disagree. We need certain types of tort reform such as for class actions and products liability.

Juries do the right thing 99% off the time, despite the lawyers and the judge. As far as reform - here is what I mean. I overheard a Clerk of a county that contains Philadelphia suburbs and some rural areas. Out of 700 jury subpoenas, 240 showed up for service. The contempt that some have for our system is palpable, which I sense during jury selection. And when you have an out of wack verdict, the public catterwalls that it is because of the lawyers, and not because of a collection of idiots on the jury. Bad verdicts happen because our system is devalued in the eyes of potential jurrors. Good people decide they would rather do other things than serve. So we get idiots who don't want to be there and who are willing to express their emotions and sentiments through their verdict.

So when I get involved in a conversation about tort reform, I say we don't need it. Most tort reform solutions disempower the jury system, most likely in response to some powerful special interest anyway. We just need to properly apply the laws we have. So who applies the law? The jury. If nobody wants to participate, then we get the government we deserve. So we do not neet tort reform - we need jury reform.

The first step putting the focus on the problem, instead of letting our profession be a punching bag for interests that want to escape from the jury system. With recogniotion of the problem comes acceptance of responsibility and reform.