Gov. Rick Perry signs tort reform bill into law

AP ^ | May 30, 2011, 12:30PM | SOMMER INGRAM

[snowrip]

If that was your point, your argument doesn’t hold water... as evidenced by my OP.

The bill signed by Perry is an excellent first step in driving down the prime mover in healthcare and health insurance costs: lawsuits. Calling it a political move shows a misunderstanding of the larger issue.

[RVN Airplane Driver]

There are a certain amount of mush-heads in Texas that if Perry gave them a money machine would bitch....now that being said...the biggest mush-heads in Texas are easily the Dumbcrats in the legislature, primarily that blonde airhead from Fort Worth, Wendy Davis, who brilliantly filibustered the school finance issue so that Perry has had to call a special session. With that move now it’s a simple majority to pass it which of course it will with only a simple majority required now. Additionally now some of the other bills that the dummy’s managed to sidetrack can now be brought back up. Sometimes unintended consequences are so beautiful!

[TribalPrincess2U]

Very interesting indeed.

[DH]

Never!

[ilovesarah2012]

Then you probably don’t understand how these things work.

[Terry Mross]

I have a valid claim. But the liability limit is $250,000. No insurance company will settle and it would cost at least that much to get it to court.

[Terry Mross]

I reported him to the license department. No response.

[DH]

OH YES I DO!

I said that “I” never filed a lawsuit.

Unlike naive people like you, I’ve owned a business since 1979 and believe me, warding off lawsuits and the potential damage they can cause financially....along with HUGE insurance premiums due to frivolous filers, I am fully aware of the damage they do to INNOCENT business people like myself!

I am not alone for all business owners are more than constantly aware of the potential unrestricted frivolous lawsuit that waits for them.

File a lawsuit? I’ve found out that there is no such thing as an accident. Accidents are always caused by inattention, failure to abide by some type of safety rule, and sheer carelessness. There were times that I had (what I thought was a basis for one) but after thinking it out, it was me...not the other...that did something stupid that caused my problem.

Now, if you have a REAL reason to file a lawsuit (being ABSOLUTELY PROVABLE WITH HARD FACTS) do it. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s what our courts are there for.

Don’t ever think for a minute that a businessman does not keep abreast of the laws and statutes that are issued on an ever-increasing daily count, that open the doors to a lawsuit and the padding of an attorney’s pockets. Our businesses and personal fortunes depend on it.

[Terry Mross]

Considering I had a heart attack during the procedure. My current cardiologist told me the first guy put the stents in wrong. That’s how I KNOW” he did something wrong.

I’d like to see his license pulled.

This guy has been forbidden to practice in several hospitals in the area. He’s a Pah-kee-ston quack job.

I hope you never have to suffer as much as this caused me to suffer, you compassionate son of gun!

[ilovesarah2012]

Well, then, if the accident is the fault of the person injured, you have nothing to worry about.

[God luvs America]

http://www.wenatcheeworld.com/news/2011/feb/17/preventive-medicine-doctors-order-tests-to/

http://philadelphiapersonalinjuryblog.com/2010/06/er-doctors-do-excessive-testing-to-avoid-malpractice-lawsuits.html

http://www.bergencountymedicalmalpractice.com/2011/01/study-doctors-still-fear-medical-malpractice-suits.shtml

[dearolddad]

Please keep in mind that there is a difference between bad doctoring and bad outcomes.

[ilovesarah2012]

By this logic, reducing liability could increase costly medical errors and encourage providers to recommend profitable but unnecessary and even risky treatments, increasing health care costs and lowering the quality of care. Thus the effect of tort reform on costs is an empirical question.

http://www.nber.org/aginghealth/2009no3/w15371.html

[freekitty]

You hope.

[Trod Upon]

Of course. Don't be ridiculous. However, the grounds for such suits should be well-founded, and the loser should pay the prevailing parties costs. Also, I think there should be professional jurors, so they can't be scammed by the likes of John Edwards and others like him. Rules like these would cut out a lot of the frivolous lawsuits.

What evidence, if any, do you have that the vast majority of malpractice suits are not well-founded? Those who lose say they aren't, and say it loudly and often, but what would you expect someone who has tarnished his professional reputation through incompetence to say? The effect (and I think point) of "loser pays" is to protect the well-funded at the expense of the little guy; just because you lose doesn't mean you didn't actually have a valid claim--the system ain't perfect.

Furthermore, are you aware that bringing an action found frivolous is a great way for a lawyer to get his case tossed, for opposing counsel to seek sanctions including fees and costs, and for the offending lawyer to eventually be sued for legal malpractice AND face suspension or disbarment? A great example of Federal (states have similar provisions) Rule 11 in action can be seen here: http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202473060848&slreturn=1&hbxlogin=1
The system already has ways for dealing with truly frivolous cases, and it deals with them far more rationally than a flat "loser pays" rule.

Finally, at times I've also favored the idea of "professional jurors" in civil cases. But wouldn't they end up being government employees? You really want trial by bureaucrat? Not me. I'll take my chances with Bubba and Luverne. They've got more common sense than most of the people sucking the taxpayers dry.

There is no "arbitrary damages cap" and there will never be one. However, there should be caps on the nonquantifiable "pain and suffering".

If the problem is that pain and suffering are not precisely quantifiable then that is the perfect situation for a jury to weigh the facts and make a judgment call. The only other rational option is to decide as a society that pain and suffering are simply not worthy of compensation. Capping damages you can't quantify because any amount above a given number makes you queasy is the essence of an arbitrary rule.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, but I hope you'll look into Rule 11 and read some cases. Truly frivolous cases get whacked, and so do the lawyers who bring them.

[bkopto]

We'll agree to disagree. But just a few comments.

vast majority of malpractice....

I NEVER said "vast majority" in any of my postings. Neverless, the defense does win a significant majority of such cases that go to trial, in my understanding. Well-founded cases do NOT lose at trial. A losing case at trial (for the plaintiff) means that that the plaintiff's atty had poor judgement and wasted EVERYONE'S resources.

Furthermore, are you aware....

That's a bunch of theoretical falderal. NEVER happens to any SIGINFICANT degree. Lawyers protect each other. Compare malpractice RATES of lawyers to malpractice RATES of physicians (and I don't mean "rates" as in $$ rates). See whose rates are higher. Its not even close. If lawyers rates are lower (and they are), is one therefore justified in concluding that lawyers are smarter, more careful, and more thoughtful in their profession than doctors, OR is there another explanation? (rhetorical question).

Bubba and Laverne *might* be good for criminal cases, but it is easy to find examples of case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case where B & L are emotionally manipulated by the involved lawyers or otherwise fooled or scammed into coming up with the most astonishing, jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping verdicts. See www.overlawyered.com. B & L are selected to serve on jury based their ignorance, stupidity and emotional pliability. Given my opinion of B & L, it logically follows that they should not be assessing the intangibles of pain and suffering.

[Trod Upon]

I NEVER said "vast majority" in any of my postings. Neverless, the defense does win a significant majority of such cases that go to trial, in my understanding. Well-founded cases do NOT lose at trial. A losing case at trial (for the plaintiff) means that that the plaintiff's atty had poor judgement and wasted EVERYONE'S resources.

I think it is the clear implication of your earlier posts. You're complaining about so-called frivolous lawsuits and saying "cases should be well-founded." What is the implication of those statements if not that med mal cases are generally not presently well-founded? (Also consider the context of your comments re: B&L, below) What puzzles me is your seemingly contradictory statement above that well-founded cases do not lose. If that is the case, then one has to wonder where the epidemic of frivolity is. Unless defense counsel are imbeciles, they would settle every time they were presented with a valid claim and when they did go to trial they would never lose. Clearly not the case.

That's a bunch of theoretical falderal. NEVER happens to any SIGINFICANT degree. Lawyers protect each other.

That's just goofy. What possible incentive would there be for a defense lawyer to protect the plaintiff when he can wipe out the guy's case and get his fees paid while completely vindicating his client? That's conspiracy theory stuff. Sanctions are sought and granted to the degree defense counsel are able to make it happen. They aren't going to trade their licenses for the plaintiff counsel's. You want to talk professional protection? Look no farther than tort reform.

Compare malpractice RATES of lawyers to malpractice RATES of physicians (and I don't mean "rates" as in $$ rates). See whose rates are higher. Its not even close. If lawyers rates are lower (and they are), is one therefore justified in concluding that lawyers are smarter, more careful, and more thoughtful in their profession than doctors, OR is there another explanation? (rhetorical question).

Actually the answer is much simpler. First, doctors have the difficulty of misdiagnosis, which just isn't an issue for lawyers. So on that basis alone I would be inclined to believe that lawyers do in fact blow it much less frequently than physicians do, without regard to relative competence. Second, legal malpractice claims are much more difficult to prove. Doctors are almost always damned by their own records and the fact that medicine is a pretty concrete science--the body works the way it works and errors are easy to backtrack. Causation in legal malpractice, unless it's something obvious like blowing a statute of limitations, can be very difficult to prove. No conspiracy theories required.

Bubba and Laverne *might* be good for criminal cases, but it is easy to find examples of case after case after case after case after case after case after case after case where B & L are emotionally manipulated by the involved lawyers or otherwise fooled or scammed into coming up with the most astonishing, jaw-dropping, forehead-slapping verdicts. See www.overlawyered.com. B & L are selected to serve on jury based their ignorance, stupidity and emotional pliability. Given my opinion of B & L, it logically follows that they should not be assessing the intangibles of pain and suffering.

Do defense counsel also favor dumb jurors who will be putty in plaintiff counsel's blood-dripping talons? No, of course not. And both sides have the same crack at challenging members of the randomly-selected jury pool, but I won't bother citing the rules of civil procedure again because you won't believe it anyway. Overlawyerd.com? Now there's an unbiased source of legal information--I bet there's no cherry-picking going on over there! Come on.