Tort Reform, are there any trial lawyers here?

[cmp1223]

The situation here in Florida concerning doctors and lawsuits is really critical. I was just wondering if there are any trial lawyers here that deal with malpractice that could offer any kind of argument against tort reform, be cause id sure like to hear it.

 

[Riprorin]

John Edwards, are you out there?

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: cmp1223
The situation here in Florida concerning doctors and lawsuits is really critical. I was just wondering if there are any trial lawyers here that deal with malpractice that could offer any kind of argument against tort reform, be cause id sure like to hear it.

I am actually in the middle of deciding whether to attend law or medical school but I think I can give you a balanced look.

What you are seeing in all of this boils down to 2 competing ideas: the right to be compensated if you are harmed and the right to of physicians to be able to practice (put differently, the right of the society to have access to medical care).

So if we look only at the first principle - the right to be compensated - it is fairly hard to argue some cases. Take a doctor who is ridiculously drunk and manages to kill a baby during delivery. Or the doctors who amputate the wrong leg. There are many of the cut and dry cases.

There are some that are in the middle - what if the doctor prescribes a drug that is fatal if combined with another drug and winds up killing his patient (who was on that other drug).

Then there are the age old cases of the doctor doing everything right but the patient still not making it. You had a massive heart attack, the team did everything they could, you didn't make it, and now you are going to make them pay.

The principle is that if somebody inflicts harm on you then you have a right to be made whole. And, as those first examples show, there are very few people who would restrict it in some cases - the drunk doctor would have most of us screaming "make him pay."

The more you punish doctors the more you cut back on access. Maybe the doctors don't want to treat high risk patients. Maybe they refuse to do high risk procedures. Maybe they refuse to treat known litigious patients.

The real question is where do you draw that line between being compensated for a loss and providing medical care for the community.

At the end of the day if it is you or your loved one who is injured you want to make him pay and this has become the dominant reason behind the problem today.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: cmp1223
The situation here in Florida concerning doctors and lawsuits is really critical. I was just wondering if there are any trial lawyers here that deal with malpractice that could offer any kind of argument against tort reform, be cause id sure like to hear it.

I am actually in the middle of deciding whether to attend law or medical school but I think I can give you a balanced look.

What you are seeing in all of this boils down to 2 competing ideas: the right to be compensated if you are harmed and the right to of physicians to be able to practice (put differently, the right of the society to have access to medical care).

So if we look only at the first principle - the right to be compensated - it is fairly hard to argue some cases. Take a doctor who is ridiculously drunk and manages to kill a baby during delivery. Or the doctors who amputate the wrong leg. There are many of the cut and dry cases.

There are some that are in the middle - what if the doctor prescribes a drug that is fatal if combined with another drug and winds up killing his patient (who was on that other drug).

Then there are the age old cases of the doctor doing everything right but the patient still not making it. You had a massive heart attack, the team did everything they could, you didn't make it, and now you are going to make them pay.

The principle is that if somebody inflicts harm on you then you have a right to be made whole. And, as those first examples show, there are very few people who would restrict it in some cases - the drunk doctor would have most of us screaming "make him pay."

The more you punish doctors the more you cut back on access. Maybe the doctors don't want to treat high risk patients. Maybe they refuse to do high risk procedures. Maybe they refuse to treat known litigious patients.

The real question is where do you draw that line between being compensated for a loss and providing medical care for the community.

At the end of the day if it is you or your loved one who is injured you want to make him pay and this has become the dominant reason behind the problem today.

The problem is the victim? Hmmm.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

The problem is the victim? Hmmm.

The problem is your lack of reading comprehension. How you pulled that out of your ass so quickly amazes me.

Here, then, for your consumption is my argument in bullet points:

1) You have a right to be compensated if you are harmed
2) The more people who sue doctors the less doctors we have
3) The less doctors we have the more society suffers

Therefore there is a conflict between the right to be compensated and access to healthcare.

It is a balance. A line is drawn between the two. They are opposing each other. Each principle has some weight to it.

The word "victim" didn't even appear in my original post.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin

The problem is the victim? Hmmm.

The problem is your lack of reading comprehension. How you pulled that out of your ass so quickly amazes me.

Here, then, for your consumption is my argument in bullet points:

1) You have a right to be compensated if you are harmed
2) The more people who sue doctors the less doctors we have
3) The less doctors we have the more society suffers

Therefore there is a conflict between the right to be compensated and access to healthcare.

It is a balance. A line is drawn between the two. They are opposing each other. Each principle has some weight to it.

The word "victim" didn't even appear in my original post.

"At the end of the day if it is you or your loved one who is injured you want to make him pay and this has become the dominant reason behind the problem today."

"You" isn't the victim and the victim isn't the "dominant reason behind the problem today"? Maybe you should read what you write.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but it appears to me that there should be a cap on damages and there should be a penalty if one brings a frivolous suit.

The kind of jackpot justice that John Edwards has benefited from (to the tune of $40 million in the last decade) needs to be brought to an end.

 

[cmp1223]

Yes, people need to understand that

1) Medicine is not an exact science. It just isn't. For all the medical schools out there, sometimes people just die. Yes, maybe it could have been detected with $20,000 worth of tests, but it wasn't, sorry- get over it. Sh*t happens

2) Doctors make mistakes. We all make mistakes at our job. When doctors do it, people die. Gross neglagence is one thing, but when a doctor is sued millions because he did not order a battery of tests after ruling something a blip on an xray benign is another. Its how the healthcare system works. Everyone should be glad it is as good as it already is.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"At the end of the day if it is you or your loved one who is injured you want to make him pay and this has become the dominant reason behind the problem today."

"You" isn't the victim and the victim isn't the "dominant reason behind the problem today"? Maybe you should read what you write.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but it appears to me that there should be a cap on damages and there should be a penalty if one brings a frivolous suit.

The kind of jackpot justice that John Edwards has benefited from (to the tune of $40 million in the last decade) needs to be brought to an end.

Let me ask you a basic question: do you believe in the Constitution? Do you really and truly love it?

One of the most fundamental protections of the Constitution is the right to have access to the courts. It is the 7th Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

And here you have stated that you want to punish people for exercising their Constitutional right to go to court.

Then we get to the mechanics of your claim - who is going to decide what is a frivolous lawsuit? A Judge? Nope, this is America - by, for, and of the people. A group of medical experts - sorry, both sides have medical experts who disagree with each other. If you answer anything other than "a jury" you have just dishonored the spirit of the 7th Amendment.

And let's say that this jury decides to award somebody millions of dollars in damages. That is exactly the situation with John Edward. He didn't milk anybody of anything - people who had been injured hired him to represent them in front of a random group of average, ordinary Americans. These same American decided to award millions worth of damages.

That's our system. That is our Constitution. What, exactly, is so wrong with that?

Oh, I forgot, it's that he's running against Bush and is therefore evil.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"At the end of the day if it is you or your loved one who is injured you want to make him pay and this has become the dominant reason behind the problem today."

"You" isn't the victim and the victim isn't the "dominant reason behind the problem today"? Maybe you should read what you write.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but it appears to me that there should be a cap on damages and there should be a penalty if one brings a frivolous suit.

The kind of jackpot justice that John Edwards has benefited from (to the tune of $40 million in the last decade) needs to be brought to an end.

Let me ask you a basic question: do you believe in the Constitution? Do you really and truly love it?

One of the most fundamental protections of the Constitution is the right to have access to the courts. It is the 7th Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

And here you have stated that you want to punish people for exercising their Constitutional right to go to court.

Then we get to the mechanics of your claim - who is going to decide what is a frivolous lawsuit? A Judge? Nope, this is America - by, for, and of the people. A group of medical experts - sorry, both sides have medical experts who disagree with each other. If you answer anything other than "a jury" you have just dishonored the spirit of the 7th Amendment.

And let's say that this jury decides to award somebody millions of dollars in damages. That is exactly the situation with John Edward. He didn't milk anybody of anything - people who had been injured hired him to represent them in front of a random group of average, ordinary Americans. These same American decided to award millions worth of damages.

That's our system. That is our Constitution. What, exactly, is so wrong with that?

Oh, I forgot, it's that he's running against Bush and is therefore evil.

Is that your argument against tort reform?

So you think the current system is working fine. Good for you. Most people don't.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Is that your argument against tort reform?
So you think the current system is working fine. Good for you. Most people don't.

Do I believe that our Constitution is working fine? Absolutely. I doubt most people don't.

What about you, Rip? Do you think the Constitution is working fine?

I believe in the fundamental justice of 12 average Americans before any other system.

By the way, Rip, since you're so keen - what is a tort? What are the elements of a tort? How would you re-arrange it? How would you fix it?

You can't cap it because it is un-Constitutional (that is what "shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law") means in the 7th Amendment.

 

[Riprorin]

Lawyers make millions while most patients receive nothing

The Physician Insurers Association of America report that under typical contingency fee arrangements, lawyers walk away with 30-50% of any jury award to the plaintiff, plus an additional percentage of the award to cover expenses. (Medical Malpractice Claim Expenses, Physician Insurers Association of America, 1999)

The Department of Health and Human Services notes that when a patient does decide to go into the litigation system, only a very small number recover anything. They note that 57 - 70% of cases result in no payment for the patient. (Testimony presented by the Physician Insurers Association of America before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law before the House Judiciary Committee, June 12, 2002)

The majority of victims of medical error do not pursue litigation. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 1.53% of those injured filed a claim. ("Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence; results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III". New England Journal of Medicine, July 25, 1991.)

Almost half of the total amount of claim costs paid for liability claims in the long term care industry is going directly to attorneys. (Long Term Care: General Liability and Professional Liability Actuarial Analysis, p. 4)

The National Association of Consumer Advocates testified: "Simply put, many consumer class actions are now being settled on the basis of what the lawyers get and not what the consumers in the class get." (National Association of Consumer Advocates, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing, May 4, 1999)

Link

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Is that your argument against tort reform?
So you think the current system is working fine. Good for you. Most people don't.

Do I believe that our Constitution is working fine? Absolutely. I doubt most people don't.

What about you, Rip? Do you think the Constitution is working fine?

I believe in the fundamental justice of 12 average Americans before any other system.

By the way, Rip, since you're so keen - what is a tort? What are the elements of a tort? How would you re-arrange it? How would you fix it?

You can't cap it because it is un-Constitutional (that is what "shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law") means in the 7th Amendment.

Bush's proposals seem reasonable to me.

What reforms are proposed for medical malpractice cases?

The Bush Administration's reform proposals are based on a reform measure enacted by California in 1975. The House has approved this legislation but it has been stalled in the Senate. The principle features of the House bill are:

Cap on non-economic damages
There would be separate caps for "non-economic "damages at $250,000. Virtually all medical malpractice awards include a substantial amount for "pain and suffering". It is this element of damages that would be limited. Although several states presently have medical malpractice "damage caps" of some type, only five states have the limit on non-economic damages proposed by this legislation. Although proponents of this legislation argue that California's similar provisions have successfully kept insurance rates down, the evidence suggests that it was insurance reform, not damage caps, that has truly affected California's malpractice rates.

Limitation on attorney's fees
Plaintiff's attorney fees would be limited to (1) 40% of the first $50,000 recovered; (2) 33 % of the next $50,000 recovered; (3) 25% of the next $500,000 recovered; and (4) 15% of any recovery in excess of $600,000. About ten states presently have similar limits on attorney's fees.

Allows consideration of "collateral sources" in measuring damages
In most states, juries are not informed about the extent to which injured patients may have already received benefits, usually through health or disability insurance policies. The proposed legislation will allow the jury to consider this information in determining damages. A majority of states already have similar rules pertaining to collateral sources.

Mandates periodic payment of damages
The measure requires that all future damages over $50,000 be made in periodic payments. This substantially reduces the value of the award. Currently about a third of the states mandate periodic payments but most are at thresholds substantially in excess of $50,000.

Link

 

[Spencer278]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Lawyers make millions while most patients receive nothing

The Physician Insurers Association of America report that under typical contingency fee arrangements, lawyers walk away with 30-50% of any jury award to the plaintiff, plus an additional percentage of the award to cover expenses. (Medical Malpractice Claim Expenses, Physician Insurers Association of America, 1999)

The Department of Health and Human Services notes that when a patient does decide to go into the litigation system, only a very small number recover anything. They note that 57 - 70% of cases result in no payment for the patient. (Testimony presented by the Physician Insurers Association of America before the Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law before the House Judiciary Committee, June 12, 2002)

The majority of victims of medical error do not pursue litigation. A study in the New England Journal of Medicine found that only 1.53% of those injured filed a claim. ("Relation between malpractice claims and adverse events due to negligence; results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study III". New England Journal of Medicine, July 25, 1991.)

Almost half of the total amount of claim costs paid for liability claims in the long term care industry is going directly to attorneys. (Long Term Care: General Liability and Professional Liability Actuarial Analysis, p. 4)

The National Association of Consumer Advocates testified: "Simply put, many consumer class actions are now being settled on the basis of what the lawyers get and not what the consumers in the class get." (National Association of Consumer Advocates, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Hearing, May 4, 1999)

Link

And you want to make it worses for the patients. I think the rules need to be change so that going to court doesn't waste years to get a jury to rule.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Lawyers make millions while most patients receive nothing

Now that is the first valid point that you have yet made.

To start with it does not have to be that way - a contingency fee is structured so that the plaintiff doesn't ever have to pay any money in legal bills unless they win. If the lawyer spends 10 months preparing and loses they eat the loss.

This allows poor people to have access to lawyers that wouldn't otherwise have access. Those who can afford it are more than able to purchase the services of a lawyer on a per hour basis and receive the totality of the award. Not many people can afford to pay a lawyer out of pocket so the contingency fees offer representation that would not otherwise exist.

And who do these contingency lawyers battle? Well funded, experienced, talented insurance company lawyers who do not like paying out and use very trick possible. Make no mistake about it - big corporate lawyers are well paid for a reason.

Why doesn't anybody blame the insurance companies?

One of the reasons for the increase in malpractice insurance is that insurance companies are chasing lost profits. Even when litigation goes down, and jury awards are reduced, when the costs go down the rate for physicians remains the same.

I don't have all the answers but simplistic "lawyers are evil" type thinking shows disrespect for our legal system, our Constitution, and your fellow Americans who make up juries.

 

[1EZduzit]

Why doesn't the AMA kick out bad doctors? They won't even keep score of who the bad doctor's are? After a couple of law suits, the doctor's should get put on a list. If your going in for a surgery, you should have more then "word of mouth" evaluations of how good your doctor is.

I won't feel sorry for Doctor's until they start policing themselves, which they don't do. In the meantime the only option available is to sue them for incompetance.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Lawyers make millions while most patients receive nothing

Now that is the first valid point that you have yet made.

To start with it does not have to be that way - a contingency fee is structured so that the plaintiff doesn't ever have to pay any money in legal bills unless they win. If the lawyer spends 10 months preparing and loses they eat the loss.

This allows poor people to have access to lawyers that wouldn't otherwise have access. Those who can afford it are more than able to purchase the services of a lawyer on a per hour basis and receive the totality of the award. Not many people can afford to pay a lawyer out of pocket so the contingency fees offer representation that would not otherwise exist.

And who do these contingency lawyers battle? Well funded, experienced, talented insurance company lawyers who do not like paying out and use very trick possible. Make no mistake about it - big corporate lawyers are well paid for a reason.

Why doesn't anybody blame the insurance companies?

One of the reasons for the increase in malpractice insurance is that insurance companies are chasing lost profits. Even when litigation goes down, and jury awards are reduced, when the costs go down the rate for physicians remains the same.

I don't have all the answers but simplistic "lawyers are evil" type thinking shows disrespect for our legal system, our Constitution, and your fellow Americans who make up juries.

Platitudes are nice but what's your solution to spiraling medical costs and keeing doctors in the medical profession?

Apparently you can't offer one as you can only defend the status quo.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Platitudes are nice but what's your solution to spiraling medical costs and keeing doctors in the medical profession?

Apparently you can't offer one as you can only defend the status quo.

Oh, that is a really easy question to answer. Time for some anti-business trust busting a la Teddy Roosevelt.

Quoting from your own post "the evidence suggests that it was insurance reform, not damage caps, that has truly affected California's malpractice rates."

Go after insurance company practices, go after HMO's and the way they introduce financial conflict of interests into patient care, and start subsidizing medical education so that paying off the loans is feasible for most.

Do you know how much 200 Billion could have done in reducing loan payments for doctors? You do realize that debt load is what caused a lot of the problems, right? The massive specialization and loss of primary care physicians, the explosion of medicare costs, the inability of physicians to fight back against HMO practices that endanger patient health - all of these are student debt problems.

Those 3 things alone would basically stop 85% of the attrition from medicine.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why doesn't the AMA kick out bad doctors? They won't even keep score of who the bad doctor's are? After a couple of law suits, the doctor's should get put on a list. If your going in for a surgery, you should have more than "word of mouth" evaluations of how good your doctor is.

I won't feel sorry for Doctor's until they start policing themselves, which they don't do. In the meantime the only option available is to sue them for incompetance.

I agree with you that the medical profession needs to start policing itself better. This is, to me, an area that is ripe for regulation.

As far as the AMA - you do realize that the AMA is only a lobby, right, not some body with any kind of real power? It's not their job to keep track records of bad doctors, that is the job of state medical licensing boards.

Lastly I don't think that the amount of times any particular doctor has been sued proves much of anything. Some doctors take much higher risk patients and are therefore sued more often. The process of suing often means that the lawyers sue everyone in sight so it is not uncommon for some people to sue 50 doctors at once.

But some definite regulation should be in place to protect patients from truly incompetent physicians.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why doesn't the AMA kick out bad doctors? They won't even keep score of who the bad doctor's are? After a couple of law suits, the doctor's should get put on a list. If your going in for a surgery, you should have more than "word of mouth" evaluations of how good your doctor is.

I won't feel sorry for Doctor's until they start policing themselves, which they don't do. In the meantime the only option available is to sue them for incompetance.

I agree with you that the medical profession needs to start policing itself better. This is, to me, an area that is ripe for regulation.

As far as the AMA - you do realize that the AMA is only a lobby, right, not some body with any kind of real power? It's not their job to keep track records of bad doctors, that is the job of state medical licensing boards.

Lastly I don't think that the amount of times any particular doctor has been sued proves much of anything. Some doctors take much higher risk patients and are therefore sued more often. The process of suing often means that the lawyers sue everyone in sight so it is not uncommon for some people to sue 50 doctors at once.

But some definite regulation should be in place to protect patients from truly incompetent physicians.

The lawyers have to sue everyone to get to the truth or the doctor's/hospitals will hide everthing they can.

The AMA is basically the docotr's union. It represents them as a lobbyist and do you think they would let any laws be passed regarding a report card on doctor's? . It is BS to not have that info available. Then, the insurance is just a big rip-off. Everyone is in it for the money, The docotrs, the lawyers, and the insurance companies. It is the biggest cash cow in the country.

Check out this link:

Pay Packages

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
Why doesn't the AMA kick out bad doctors? They won't even keep score of who the bad doctor's are? After a couple of law suits, the doctor's should get put on a list. If your going in for a surgery, you should have more than "word of mouth" evaluations of how good your doctor is.

I won't feel sorry for Doctor's until they start policing themselves, which they don't do. In the meantime the only option available is to sue them for incompetance.

I agree with you that the medical profession needs to start policing itself better. This is, to me, an area that is ripe for regulation.

As far as the AMA - you do realize that the AMA is only a lobby, right, not some body with any kind of real power? It's not their job to keep track records of bad doctors, that is the job of state medical licensing boards.

Lastly I don't think that the amount of times any particular doctor has been sued proves much of anything. Some doctors take much higher risk patients and are therefore sued more often. The process of suing often means that the lawyers sue everyone in sight so it is not uncommon for some people to sue 50 doctors at once.

But some definite regulation should be in place to protect patients from truly incompetent physicians.

No criticism at all for lawyers? I guess you're leaning towards the legal profession.

Just look at John Edwards, you can make a lot more money suing doctors than you can treating sick people.

I doubt many medical professionals can rake in $40 million in 10 years.

 

[ForThePeople]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit
The lawyers have to sue everyone to get to the truth or the doctor's/hospitals will hide everthing they can.

The AMA is basically the doctor's union. It represents them as a lobbyist and do you think they would let any laws be passed regarding a report card on doctor's? . It is BS to not have that info available. Then, the insurance is just a big rip-off. Everyone is in it for the money, The doctors, the lawyers, and the insurance companies. It is the biggest cash cow in the country.

Check out this link:

Pay Packages

I agree with you in part and disagree in other parts.

I began this thread by stating that I have to decide whether I am going to law or med school so I have some knowledge of them both (although I am putting off the decision a little longer).

For the average doctor the money is simply not there. The loans are ridiculous and then the years of servitude as a resident (making no more than about 50g a year). If you decided to get married, have kids, buy a house - or god forbid do all 3 - you will never pay the loans off. I know some physicians who went to school in the 80s (when tuition was much, much lower) who are still paying it off.

What happens is that you are forced into high paid specialties like dermatology or radiology even if you love doing primary care. The economics are so out of whack that the slots for the "worst" residencies are being filled by overseas medical grads who don't owe huge loans.

The idea that doctors are fabulously rich is anachronistic - true in the 50s and 60s but not anymore.

All of this is beside the point. In typical Republican shift the issue people like Rip are going insane over John Edwards piddly millions while the big business interests f*%k the patient and the doctor and laugh themselves all the way to the bank.

What is really needed is some truly aggressive anti-business crack downs and then we'll see the situation become better. But the idea that tort reform and trial lawyers are responsible is another bait and switch that Republican big business uses to keep people uninformed and without power.

 

[Ferocious]

Actually the situation is far from critical. Insurance companies charge more because they can and therefore do.

Republicans exaggerate it a lot because of politics.

 

[1EZduzit]

It worked for them in the early 80's so they are trying it again. I know many doctors aren't making alot these days. About 10 years ago, my doctor quit and moved to a big city. He was working for a small family owned clinic and all the docotr's would take care of each others family. His wife got pretty sick and her hospital stay cost him a bundle, so he quit (gave 2 weeks notice) to take a job that had health insurance.
.
Now that's ironic.

The system is mucked up, what to do?? I don't know. We need good afforadable basic health care in this country, but health insurance seems to be the problem, not the answer. ???

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: ForThePeople

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"At the end of the day if it is you or your loved one who is injured you want to make him pay and this has become the dominant reason behind the problem today."

"You" isn't the victim and the victim isn't the "dominant reason behind the problem today"? Maybe you should read what you write.

I'm not an expert on this topic, but it appears to me that there should be a cap on damages and there should be a penalty if one brings a frivolous suit.

The kind of jackpot justice that John Edwards has benefited from (to the tune of $40 million in the last decade) needs to be brought to an end.

Let me ask you a basic question: do you believe in the Constitution? Do you really and truly love it?

One of the most fundamental protections of the Constitution is the right to have access to the courts. It is the 7th Amendment:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

And here you have stated that you want to punish people for exercising their Constitutional right to go to court.

Then we get to the mechanics of your claim - who is going to decide what is a frivolous lawsuit? A Judge? Nope, this is America - by, for, and of the people. A group of medical experts - sorry, both sides have medical experts who disagree with each other. If you answer anything other than "a jury" you have just dishonored the spirit of the 7th Amendment.

And let's say that this jury decides to award somebody millions of dollars in damages. That is exactly the situation with John Edward. He didn't milk anybody of anything - people who had been injured hired him to represent them in front of a random group of average, ordinary Americans. These same American decided to award millions worth of damages.

That's our system. That is our Constitution. What, exactly, is so wrong with that?

Oh, I forgot, it's that he's running against Bush and is therefore evil.

I really enjoy when you non-lawyer types attempt to lecture the rest of us on Constitutional law. Why bother with law school - you're already an expert! :roll:
Just FYI, caps on monetary awards in civil cases are not unconstitutional.

 

[Mursilis]

Maryland just approved a 33% increases in doctors' malpractice insurance premiums.
Link
So much for affordable health care!