Study: Excessive Tort Litigation Costs US $864 billion annually

[Queasy]

PDF to Pacific Research Organization study

America's out-of-control legal system imposes a staggering economic cost of over $865 billion every year.

This figure is 27 times more than the federal government spends on homeland security and 30 times the budget of the National Institutes of Health.

Thanks to the abuse of medical liability alone, the U.S. spends an extra $124 billion a year on health care. That's exactly the same size as the Iraq war supplemental bill that just passed. In other words, the constant threat of medical liability lawsuits exerts a monetary cost on our country that's comparable to sustaining a war. Further, this cost has added 3.4 million Americans to the rolls of the uninsured.

Yikes.

One of the sidebars:

In 1971, hard-working Mitchell Bankston accomplished his dream of building
and operating a pharmacy in Fayette, Mississippi. At the time, his store,
Bankston Drugstore, was the only pharmacy in Jefferson County. For years,
Mitchell and his wife, Hilda, provided their patients with honest service,
treating each with caution and care.
Then, in 1999, Bankston Drugstore was named as a defendant in a
national class-action lawsuit against the manufacturer of Fen-Phen, a Food
and Drug Administration ? approved drug for weight loss. At that point, the
small pharmacy went from serving its community?s needs to becoming prey
to money-driven litigants and the attorneys representing them. Though the
drugmaker was based in New Jersey, the plaintiffs? attorneys named the
Bankstons in the lawsuits so the case could be kept in Jefferson County
? a known plaintiff-friendly jurisdiction that, between 1995 and 2000, had
twice the number of plaintiffs as actual residents. The Bankstons? offense?
Filling a legal prescription for the drug.
Three weeks after being informed of the lawsuit, the previously healthy
Mitchell Bankston died of what his wife described as a massive heart attack.
Mrs. Bankston was left to untangle the twisted knot of paperwork, records,
and testimonies ? only to be forced to sell the pharmacy a year later.
The only drugstore in the community, and the business that the Bankston
family had put its life?s work into, was sold.
In the end, the Bankstons were sued more than one hundred times for
actions most would consider no fault of their own. The lawsuits undoubtedly
made a pretty penny for the attorneys involved, but it also tore apart a
family and hurt a community.

 

[crownjules]

Not a big surprise. The US is far and above the most litigious society in the world. Too many people are looking to make big bucks that they don't deserve and others get thrown under the proverbial bus because of it.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

I think there's alot of good things that would be on the market if it wasn't for excessive litigation. The reason why the US was so awesome in technology before the mid '80s hit was because people weren't thinking of covering thier asses, they were thinking "People can use this".

 

[J0hnny]

This type of rampant litigation will soon change. It's going to reach some sort of boiling point one day and BOOM....

 

[2Xtreme21]

Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can profit at the expense of others?

It's a sad world we live in.

 

[Lonyo]

Originally posted by: 2Xtreme21
Why take responsibility for your own actions when you can profit at the expense of others?

It's a sad country we live in.

Fixed.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: J0hnny
This type of rampant litigation will soon change. It's going to reach some sort of boiling point one day and BOOM....

I think that "Boom" isn't going to happen until the US is in an economic depression.

 

[skace]

I'm down with this finger pointing exercise.

 

[Reel]

War on Medicine - check

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

In all fairness, "frivolousness" is a relative concept, and the heavy use of adjectives in that excerpt implies that this study carries a lot of bias. A quick perusal of PRI's website demonstrates that they are basically a right-wing think tank.

Isn't this really a P&N topic, anyway?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In all fairness, "frivolousness" is a relative concept, and the heavy use of adjectives in that excerpt implies that this study carries a lot of bias. A quick perusal of PRI's website demonstrates that they are basically a right-wing think tank.

Isn't this really a P&N topic, anyway?

Since when is free market "right wing?"

PRI is a free market think tank and states it's vision is the promotion of "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility."

Or are you implying that the concept of freedom is right wing?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Amused

Since when is free market "right wing?"

PRI is a free market think tank and states it's vision is the promotion of "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility."

Or are you implying that the concept of freedom is right wing?

Jeez, what a drama queen.

No, I do not think "the concept of freedom is right wing." I think PRI is right-wing, and I think the numbers they've cooked regarding "frivolous lawsuits" are highly suspect. That is not to say - at all - that there are no frivolous lawsuits, or even that there aren't a lot of them - I am just wary of aggregating large numbers of cases under a "frivolous" banner.

In fact, in order to even bring a medical malpractice case (the primary form of "frivolous lawsuit" that gets Republican knickers in a twist), the plaintiff is required to produce a peer of the negligent medical provider (and in some jurisdictions, two) to say under oath that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care. Based on that alone I don't think it's reasonable to categorically state that any particular malpractice lawsuit is frivolous.

 

[boomerang]

Originally posted by: J0hnny
This type of rampant litigation will soon change. It's going to reach some sort of boiling point one day and BOOM....

As long as our nations laws are made by lawyers, we'll never see that day. I agree with you, but it will never happen.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: J0hnny
This type of rampant litigation will soon change. It's going to reach some sort of boiling point one day and BOOM....

Considering it's the lawyers making a mint on these lawsuits, and the country is run by lawyers, and all laws passed by these lawyers can be overturned by judges, who are lawyers, I doubt it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Amused

Since when is free market "right wing?"

PRI is a free market think tank and states it's vision is the promotion of "the principles of individual freedom and personal responsibility."

Or are you implying that the concept of freedom is right wing?

Jeez, what a drama queen.

No, I do not think "the concept of freedom is right wing." I think PRI is right-wing, and I think the numbers they've cooked regarding "frivolous lawsuits" are highly suspect. That is not to say - at all - that there are no frivolous lawsuits, or even that there aren't a lot of them - I am just wary of aggregating large numbers of cases under a "frivolous" banner.

In fact, in order to even bring a medical malpractice case (the primary form of "frivolous lawsuit" that gets Republican knickers in a twist), the plaintiff is required to produce a peer of the negligent medical provider (and in some jurisdictions, two) to say under oath that the defendant failed to meet the standard of care. Based on that alone I don't think it's reasonable to categorically state that any particular malpractice lawsuit is frivolous.

Are you kidding me???

You honestly think that doctors are so loyal to each other that they never testify against each other? Did you ever stop to think that there are corrupt doctors that are professional witnesses?

At any rate, you can keep poisoning the wells and digging your head in the sad for all I care.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: J0hnny
This type of rampant litigation will soon change. It's going to reach some sort of boiling point one day and BOOM....

Considering it's the lawyers making a mint on these lawsuits, and the country is run by lawyers, and all laws passed by these lawyers can be overturned by judges, who are lawyers, I doubt it.

And it takes a lawyer to both sue AND to defend...

It's a win-win-win for lawyers and a lose for the general population.

Remember that whole stink with the GM truck gas tank thing? Want to know what the consumers got? $1000 off the price of a brand new truck. (which at the time was about $25,000)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Amused

Are you kidding me???

You honestly think that doctors are so loyal to each other that they never testify against each other? Did you ever stop to think that there are corrupt doctors that are professional witnesses?

At any rate, you can keep poisoning the wells and digging your head in the sad for all I care.

Again, your melodrama is misplaced here, and interferes with a productive discussion. This kind of rhetoric is just part of the reason this topic belongs in P&N.

Obviously there are unscrupulous doctors out there, but, as I said above, the fact that a doctor is willing to stake his professional reputation on criticizing the care provided by another doc is enough that I don't think you can safely presume that a particular suit is frivolous, without doing a lot more digging into the facts and merits of the case. I have personally tried at least 30 civil and criminal cases, and each one is different in complex and nuanced ways. You just can't reasonably say a case is frivolous without knowing it the way the lawyers and fact-finders get to know it, and so I am always skeptical of these kinds of studies.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx

Originally posted by: J0hnny
This type of rampant litigation will soon change. It's going to reach some sort of boiling point one day and BOOM....

Considering it's the lawyers making a mint on these lawsuits, and the country is run by lawyers, and all laws passed by these lawyers can be overturned by judges, who are lawyers, I doubt it.

And it takes a lawyer to both sue AND to defend...

It's a win-win-win for lawyers and a lose for the general population.

Remember that whole stink with the GM truck gas tank thing? Want to know what the consumers got? $1000 off the price of a brand new truck. (which at the time was about $25,000)

Anyone get that class action notice in the mail concerning DRAM? I guess it was sent to everyone who has purchased DRAM in the past 10yrs or something. You'd probably get like a $5 rebate if they won the case, and the lawyers would get like $200mil. I always pass on those.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Mxylplyx
Anyone get that class action notice in the mail concerning DRAM? I guess it was sent to everyone who has purchased DRAM in the past 10yrs or something. You'd probably get like a $5 rebate if they won the case, and the lawyers would get like $200mil. I always pass on those.

I think most settlements the lawyers get paid and the manufacturer does a promotion.

$5 off retail! WOOO!WOO!

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: Amused

Are you kidding me???

You honestly think that doctors are so loyal to each other that they never testify against each other? Did you ever stop to think that there are corrupt doctors that are professional witnesses?

At any rate, you can keep poisoning the wells and digging your head in the sad for all I care.

Again, your melodrama is misplaced here, and interferes with a productive discussion. This kind of rhetoric is just part of the reason this topic belongs in P&N.

Obviously there are unscrupulous doctors out there, but, as I said above, the fact that a doctor is willing to stake his professional reputation on criticizing the care provided by another doc is enough that I don't think you can safely presume that a particular suit is frivolous, without doing a lot more digging into the facts and merits of the case. I have personally tried at least 30 civil and criminal cases, and each one is different in complex and nuanced ways. You just can't reasonably say a case is frivolous without knowing it the way the lawyers and fact-finders get to know it, and so I am always skeptical of these kinds of studies.

Well of course you cannot say a case is frivolous without looking it it. Who said you could?

But to say that because one doctor testified against another means the case is not frivolous is absurd. Ask any ambulance chaser. Professional medical witnesses are a dime a dozen.

And you want a whole slew of frivolous medical malpractice cases? Cerebral Palsy. It's how John Edwards made his millions. It put countless doctors out of business, and it was all bullsh!t.

 

[fallensight]

It is more or less the whole western world that has this problem. Though when you hear politicians talk about 'tort reform' they are not talking about fixing the problem, they are talking about putting in protections for thier prefered group(auto makers, drug companies, ex.)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Amused

And you want a whole slew of frivolous medical malpractice cases? Cerebral Palsy. It's how John Edwards made his millions. It put countless doctors out of business, and it was all bullsh!t.

When did I say I wanted a whole slew of frivolous malpractice cases? As for the CP cases, they were brought at a time that medical science supported the view that malpractice in birthing could cause CP. That no longer appears to be the case. That doesn't mean the suits were frivolous at the time - they were based on what appeared to be good science. Moreover, Edwards had many many successful cases that had nothing to do with CP or even medical malpractice, including what I believe was his most lucrative case (not that I am particularly a fan of his).

In the meantime, please tell me more, or provide some evidence, about the "countless doctors" who were put out of business by the CP cases - it seems to me that would have to be a credentialing issue, and doctors aren't decredentialed based on frivolous lawsuits - it requires findings by their facilities and licensing boards that they failed in standard of care. I am not saying this didn't happen, but I certainly have never heard of it.

 

[BornStar]

Originally posted by: DonVito
In the meantime, please tell me more, or provide some evidence, about the "countless doctors" who were put out of business by the CP cases - it seems to me that would have to be a credentialing issue, and doctors aren't decredentialed based on frivolous lawsuits - it requires findings by their facilities and licensing boards that they failed in standard of care. I am not saying this didn't happen, but I certainly have never heard of it.

I can't cite specific instances but if a doctor has enough malpractice suits filed against them (even if they win them all) they will lose insurance coverage because it is too expensive to insure them. A doctor without insurance can't practice medicine and is no longer useful to the public.

edit: That's not to say they lost their license, just that they can't practice.

 

[everman]

Not exactly what I'd call a credible report from a respectable source. It's dripping with bias and cooked numbers.

 

[desy]

All the industrialized countries except the US has a loser pays system.
A lot less people would be willing to get involved in lawsuits if they knew that they would have to pick up both legal tabs when they are wrong and would be damn sure their cases had merit.