"the frivolous lawsuit thread!"

[jhu]

i'll start out with 2:

john ritter
maurice gibb

 

[Infohawk]

Okay you have 2. Now go and look for all the meritorious suits like the ones where instruments are left in people's bodies or they operate on the wrong body part.

We probably don't have special courts for them because there is not a need. Many states have special procedures and requirements to keep frivolous cases out. Most people are just overreacting because of the Cheney FUD.

 

[godmare]

john ritter died on his daughter's fifth birthday... bummer

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Okay you have 2. Now go and look for all the meritorious suits like the ones where instruments are left in people's bodies or they operate on the wrong body part.

We probably don't have special courts for them because there is not a need. Many states have special procedures and requirements to keep frivolous cases out. Most people are just overreacting because of the Cheney FUD.

i'd put money down that the number of frivolous lawsuits outnumber those with merit. name one ob/gyn or neurosurgeon (or any surgeon for that matter) who hasn't had to defend a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Okay you have 2. Now go and look for all the meritorious suits like the ones where instruments are left in people's bodies or they operate on the wrong body part.

We probably don't have special courts for them because there is not a need. Many states have special procedures and requirements to keep frivolous cases out. Most people are just overreacting because of the Cheney FUD.

i'd put money down that the number of frivolous lawsuits outnumber those with merit. name one ob/gyn or neurosurgeon (or any surgeon for that matter) who hasn't had to defend a frivolous lawsuit.

It's nice to see you'd put your money down, but that doesn't really mean anything to me. Do you have any actual evidence though? It sounds like you just have anecdotes....

 

[Shelly21]

There was a report done that big businesses actually have five times as much lawsuits compare to regular people.

I'm sure all the business lawsuits have merit.

 

[Moonbeam]

Sue a beggar and get a louse. Be a barefoot doctor.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Shelly21
There was a report done that big businesses actually have five times as much lawsuits compare to regular people.

I'm sure all the business lawsuits have merit.

It makes sense that big businesses would have more suits since they are so much larger.

 

[AntiEverything]

Funny, Infohawk attacks anyone who isn't as rabid a leftist as Michael Moore.

<foxworthy>If you don't sprinkle your posts with some hatred... you might just be a neocon.</foxworthy>

jhu has always been a fairly level headed guy, centrist and maybe leaning slightly to the left. And all Infohawk can do is babble about Republican FUD. Perhaps jhu, being in the medical profession (you are, right jhu?) might just have some insight.

 

[Vic]

The real question about medical malpractice cases is "Why do lawyers think they know more about medicine than doctors?"

Medicine is not an exact science. Everyone thinks it should be perfect and that they should be able to live forever. Not only is that stupid, it's insane. But unethical ambulance-chasing lawyers feed and capitalize on that irrational thinking in order to make themselves rich.
The reality is that if medicine saves your life, you should be thankful. If it doesn't, then maybe you should stop to realize than modern medicine, as we know it, is barely 60 years old.

 

[Shelly21]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Shelly21
There was a report done that big businesses actually have five times as much lawsuits compare to regular people.

I'm sure all the business lawsuits have merit.

It makes sense that big businesses would have more suits since they are so much larger.

ah, but I see it as 100 people having 10 lawsuits vs. a business of 100 people having 50 lawsuits.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic
The real question about medical malpractice cases is "Why do lawyers think they know more about medicine than doctors?"

Medicine is not an exact science. Everyone thinks it should be perfect and that they should be able to live forever. Not only is that stupid, it's insane. But unethical ambulance-chasing lawyers feed and capitalize on that irrational thinking in order to make themselves rich.
The reality is that if medicine saves your life, you should be thankful. If it doesn't, then maybe you should stop to realize than modern medicine, as we know it, is barely 60 years old.

Who says lawyers think they know more about medicine? They actually use expert testimony. Lawyers don't just come in and start takling about medicine. It's not like you have a lawyer vs. a doctor. It's doctors + lawyers vs. doctors + lawyers.

Anyway, people seem to have odd views of the legal system without any actual knowledge of how it works and without any data to back it up. The data shows increasing malpractice premiums are not strongly related with "ambulance chasers."

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Shelly21

Originally posted by: Infohawk

Originally posted by: Shelly21
There was a report done that big businesses actually have five times as much lawsuits compare to regular people.

I'm sure all the business lawsuits have merit.

It makes sense that big businesses would have more suits since they are so much larger.

ah, but I see it as 100 people having 10 lawsuits vs. a business of 100 people having 50 lawsuits.

Interesting argument but I dont' think a business of 100 people is a big business? Plus I'd like to see some data backing up those numbers. The fact is the more transactions you enter into the more you expose yourself to legal troubles. Our economic engines uses the oil of the legal profession as its lubricant. Entities have conflicts and we decide them in courts of law. Perhaps there's another way to solve our problems?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Who says lawyers think they know more about medicine? They actually use expert testimony. Lawyers don't just come in and start takling about medicine. It's not like you have a lawyer vs. a doctor. It's doctors + lawyers vs. doctors + lawyers.

Anyway, people seem to have odd views of the legal system without any actual knowledge of how it works and without any data to back it up. The data shows increasing malpractice premiums are not strongly related with "ambulance chasers."

You mean highly paid "expert" testimony using 20/20 hindsight to pick apart mistakes made by highly trained practitioners of an inexact science? :roll:

And if you mean the actual number of malpractice suits are not up, then you might be correct. Malpractice premiums are up because insurance companies never know when they might have to pay out a billion plus dollars in punitive damages for the "wrongful death" of an unhealthy patient who never made a million dollars in their whole life.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Who says lawyers think they know more about medicine? They actually use expert testimony. Lawyers don't just come in and start takling about medicine. It's not like you have a lawyer vs. a doctor. It's doctors + lawyers vs. doctors + lawyers.

Anyway, people seem to have odd views of the legal system without any actual knowledge of how it works and without any data to back it up. The data shows increasing malpractice premiums are not strongly related with "ambulance chasers."

You mean highly paid "expert" testimony using 20/20 hindsight to pick apart mistakes made by highly trained practitioners of an inexact science? :roll:

So you think they are hired guns. They are MDs too. Now if you dont' think they're real doctors that's something you should take up with the medical professions. Also, there is no liability for people who lose a life when there is limited knowledge. You assume people are being sued because they make mistakes anyone would make. Again, do you have actual examples of this?

But don't claim lawyers pretend to know about medicine. That's not how it works. They use expert information when it comes to medical facts. They argue the law.

And if you mean the actual number of malpractice suits are not up, then you might be correct. Malpractice premiums are up because insurance companies never know when they might have to pay out a billion plus dollars in punitive damages for the "wrongful death" of an unhealthy patient who never made a million dollars in their whole life.

Where's your evidence for that?

I also think people forget there are juries here. The juries look at all the evidence. They are a group of average people who probably hate frivolous lawsuits as much as anyone.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Infohawk

So you think they are hired guns. They are MDs too. Now if you dont' think they're real doctors that's something you should take up with the medical professions. Also, there is no liability for people who lose a life when there is limited knowledge. You assume people are being sued because they make mistakes anyone would make. Again, do you have actual examples of this?

But don't claim lawyers pretend to know about medicine. That's not how it works. They use expert information when it comes to medical facts. They argue the law.

one indication of a suit with merit is if the "hired gun" volunteers to testify without being paid. that's a big clue that something wrong really did happen.

as for being sued for making mistakes anyone would make, take a look at the two links i posted.

Where's your evidence for that?

I also think people forget there are juries here. The juries look at all the evidence. They are a group of average people who probably hate frivolous lawsuits as much as anyone.

juries tend to be swayed by emotion and other subtleties as much as by evidence. take a look at the mcdonald's coffe lawsuit. several members of the jury were actually going to find the mcdonald's innocent, except they didn't like how pompous their lawyer was.

 

[jhu]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Sue a beggar and get a louse. Be a barefoot doctor.

i'm as close to one as i can be. help!

 

[chess9]

Uh, most lawsuits are settled out of court and not thrown out of court for being frivolous. I would guess that less than 1% of lawsuits are frivolous, though possibly as many as 10% may have only slight merit, i.e. be speculative.

Vic, lawyers don't just file medical malpractice claims. In most states the claims are reviewed first by the plaintiff's experts and then by a medical malpractice review panel before they go to court. The process tends to weed out a large number of claims that used to be filed before about 1980 or so when the states started requiring more.

Medical malpractice claims are a big thorn in the side of doctors, yes. Their specialities have become more complex and they are doing much more to relieve human suffering. But, unlike lawyers, doctors don't eat their own, but feed and protect their own. The system for disciplining doctors is badly broken but we haven't found a viable solution for weeding out bad doctors. Until we get serious about retraining and/or disciplining doctors we will continue to have this problem.

Right now my wife has a medical malpractice claim against a doctor who completely botched her neck surgery. She is going to have another doctor do it right. The doctor who did the first sugery has had so many lawsuits against him he is now self-insured. (this doctor was selected by my wife's WC carrier because she was injured on the job). In my opinion, based upon the comments of the second doctor and after looking at the MRIs of the before and after I'd say the guy should be giving shots to seniors in some poor county in North Dakota rather than being allowed to operate. I may be wrong, but I'll wait for the jury's verdict.

-Robert

 

[Shelly21]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
Interesting argument but I dont' think a business of 100 people is a big business? Plus I'd like to see some data backing up those numbers. The fact is the more transactions you enter into the more you expose yourself to legal troubles. Our economic engines uses the oil of the legal profession as its lubricant. Entities have conflicts and we decide them in courts of law. Perhaps there's another way to solve our problems?

I heard it on NPR yesterday. They were debating on the reasons why the court system is backed up with cases or something like that.

 

[daveshel]

It would be hard to come up with viable statistics on this. Many meritorious lawsuits are settled and never get to court. Many others are resolved by the trial court and never get to an appeals court, so they never appear in the court reporters. Some that do don't make it to the media because they aren't sensational. So, if jhu were to say that most of the cases reported by the media were frivolous, there woule be much less room to argue.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: jhu

Originally posted by: Infohawk

So you think they are hired guns. They are MDs too. Now if you dont' think they're real doctors that's something you should take up with the medical professions. Also, there is no liability for people who lose a life when there is limited knowledge. You assume people are being sued because they make mistakes anyone would make. Again, do you have actual examples of this?

But don't claim lawyers pretend to know about medicine. That's not how it works. They use expert information when it comes to medical facts. They argue the law.

one indication of a suit with merit is if the "hired gun" volunteers to testify without being paid. that's a big clue that something wrong really did happen.

as for being sued for making mistakes anyone would make, take a look at the two links i posted.

Where's your evidence for that?

I also think people forget there are juries here. The juries look at all the evidence. They are a group of average people who probably hate frivolous lawsuits as much as anyone.

juries tend to be swayed by emotion and other subtleties as much as by evidence. take a look at the mcdonald's coffe lawsuit. several members of the jury were actually going to find the mcdonald's innocent, except they didn't like how pompous their lawyer was.

So you don't have faith in the jury system? That's something indpendent of the medical malpractice and perhaps you should advocate an across-the board change. I don't particularly like juries either but I dont' think their as gullible as you think. I dislike them for different reasons.

THe McDonald's suit is also another misunderstood suit. A huge factor there like in many cases with punitive damages is that they kept boiling their coffee too hot and not having warning etc EVEN after people had been hurt. Other people were injured and they ketp not doing anything abou tthat. That punitive damages awards helps you and me because it makes sure companies will not try to accept the costs to certain individuals that have greater cumulative harms to society.

Anyway, I'm not against reasonable reform of malpractice (many states already have systems in place). I just think people are overreacting and also want to get rid of remedies that are just. For example, I think punitive damages were justified in the McDonald's case.

 

[Vic]

Robert, IMO your wife should be thankful that she lives in a time where such surgery is even possible. Just a few decades ago, doctors would be feeding her mercury (provided she was wealthy) that would eventually kill her and she would have no recourse at all.

 

[Infohawk]

I also agree with Chess9 on the need to better supevise doctors. I think the good doctors out there get angry because they assume other doctors are good too. Well a lot aren't . A lot overlook things and a lot have no interest in their patients (personal experience). I think it mainly has to do with the selection process. I think grades are too heavily weighted. Attention to detail and ethical history should be taken into greater detail. Look at lordtyranus who wants to go into medecine. He's a misanthrope. He doesn't like people-- you just have to read his posts. Now he may be a good accountant, but he shouldn't be a doctor no matter how good his grades are.

 

[AntiEverything]

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I also agree with Chess9 on the need to better supevise doctors. I think the good doctors out there get angry because they assume other doctors are good too. Well a lot aren't . A lot overlook things and a lot have no interest in their patients (personal experience). I think it mainly has to do with the selection process. I think grades are too heavily weighted. Attention to detail and ethical history should be taken into greater detail. Look at lordtyranus who wants to go into medecine. He's a misanthrope. He doesn't like people-- you just have to read his posts. Now he may be a good accountant, but he shouldn't be a doctor no matter how good his grades are.

So you actually WANT to shrink the pool of available doctors. Good idea, lets only let the perfect doctors practice. Once we get down to a couple of hundred doctors, nobody will be able to afford to see a doctor at all, good or bad, unless they're a Heinz.

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: AntiEverything

Originally posted by: Infohawk
I also agree with Chess9 on the need to better supevise doctors. I think the good doctors out there get angry because they assume other doctors are good too. Well a lot aren't . A lot overlook things and a lot have no interest in their patients (personal experience). I think it mainly has to do with the selection process. I think grades are too heavily weighted. Attention to detail and ethical history should be taken into greater detail. Look at lordtyranus who wants to go into medecine. He's a misanthrope. He doesn't like people-- you just have to read his posts. Now he may be a good accountant, but he shouldn't be a doctor no matter how good his grades are.

So you actually WANT to shrink the pool of available doctors. Good idea, lets only let the perfect doctors practice. Once we get down to a couple of hundred doctors, nobody will be able to afford to see a doctor at all, good or bad, unless they're a Heinz.

Ummm. No, I didn't say that. You assumed that. :roll:

I want to choose different qualities in doctors.

PS I thought you said I was a troll? Why do you bother responding to me?