Just went to Perry's website. (Actually, a very decent modern, responsive site) https://rickperry.org/

I did not know this:

In 2003, Texas passed tort reform legislation that is touted as a national example. The number of medical malpractice lawsuits fell by nearly 2/3 between 2003 and 2011, and Texas has licensed nearly 30,000 more doctors since the passage of this bill.


I'd like to get the details of the reform, but those are some impressive numbers.

Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

His tort reform measures have done nothing to help anybody. They've only made it harder for people to find justice.

(06-04-2015 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

His tort reform measures have done nothing to help anybody. They've only made it harder for people to find justice.

States with Tort Reform have seen a rise in Claims Severity (average payout per claim). The reason severity has reason is because the only cases being filed in those states are catastrophic claims with high economic damages (the past and future economic damages). These include birth trauma, loss of a limb, loss of an organ function, etc.

The number of lawsuits have been reduced in tort reform states. Most of these states now require an Affidavit or Certificate of Merit from a qualified expert. This is the best part of Tort Reform IMO. People are less likely to take on questionable cases if they have to shell out $500-1000 bucks up front to get an expert to sign off.

(06-04-2015 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

What costs are you referring to?

(06-04-2015 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

His tort reform measures have done nothing to help anybody. They've only made it harder for people to find justice.

States with Tort Reform have seen a rise in Claims Severity (average payout per claim). The reason severity has reason is because the only cases being filed in those states are catastrophic claims with high economic damages (the past and future economic damages). These include birth trauma, loss of a limb, loss of an organ function, etc.

The number of lawsuits have been reduced in tort reform states. Most of these states now require an Affidavit or Certificate of Merit from a qualified expert. This is the best part of Tort Reform IMO. People are less likely to take on questionable cases if they have to shell out $500-1000 bucks up front to get an expert to sign off.

It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

BTW, the simplest way of looking at tort reform is to realize that it isn't a cost SAVING plan, it's a burden SHIFTING plan.

Injured people are still injured at the end of the day, and with or without the civil system they will need care, often from the government. Instead of the doctor or business that did the wrong carrying the weight of that injury you and I do as taxpayers.

Burden SHIFTING

I said "BTW" a lot, I wasn't trying to be a smartass I just said it a lot. My bad.

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

His tort reform measures have done nothing to help anybody. They've only made it harder for people to find justice.

States with Tort Reform have seen a rise in Claims Severity (average payout per claim). The reason severity has reason is because the only cases being filed in those states are catastrophic claims with high economic damages (the past and future economic damages). These include birth trauma, loss of a limb, loss of an organ function, etc.

The number of lawsuits have been reduced in tort reform states. Most of these states now require an Affidavit or Certificate of Merit from a qualified expert. This is the best part of Tort Reform IMO. People are less likely to take on questionable cases if they have to shell out $500-1000 bucks up front to get an expert to sign off.

It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.



The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

As far as the state regulatory commissions are concerned, the number of claims is a very important measure they look at.

Quote:BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

An attorney who specializes in these cases would have no problem shelling out the initial money to get the case approved if they thought it was worthwhile. They dont WANT to shell out any money, but it would in no way deter them if they believed the case had merit.

(06-04-2015 02:20 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

His tort reform measures have done nothing to help anybody. They've only made it harder for people to find justice.

States with Tort Reform have seen a rise in Claims Severity (average payout per claim). The reason severity has reason is because the only cases being filed in those states are catastrophic claims with high economic damages (the past and future economic damages). These include birth trauma, loss of a limb, loss of an organ function, etc.

The number of lawsuits have been reduced in tort reform states. Most of these states now require an Affidavit or Certificate of Merit from a qualified expert. This is the best part of Tort Reform IMO. People are less likely to take on questionable cases if they have to shell out $500-1000 bucks up front to get an expert to sign off.

It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.



The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

As far as the state regulatory commissions are concerned, the number of claims is a very important measure they look at.

Quote:BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

An attorney who specializes in these cases would have no problem shelling out the initial money to get the case approved if they thought it was worthwhile. They dont WANT to shell out any money, but it would in no way deter them if they believed the case had merit.

That just isn't how practice works.

The lawyer is forced to make an economic decision, not one about the justice of the whole thing.

Also, make a few phone calls and see how many lawyers have access to hundred of thousands of dollars to try a case, and tie up the next two or three years of their practice.

Cases are not about risk. They are about doing, or trying to do the right thing. The most deserving client in the world may have next to no chance of winning. You deny them access in the end with these laws. You deny them access and shift the burden of their injury onto society at large and the government.

It's economic, not legal, restrictions. The poor are the ones who lose, as usual. But, tort reform is worst form of abuse because it denies them something all Americans have a God given right to, to seek redress in the Court system.

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:04 PM)CliftonAve Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 01:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Yup, he did it, all in the name of cutting costs which it hasn't. In fact, costs have grown faster in Texas than the national average.

His tort reform measures have done nothing to help anybody. They've only made it harder for people to find justice.

States with Tort Reform have seen a rise in Claims Severity (average payout per claim). The reason severity has reason is because the only cases being filed in those states are catastrophic claims with high economic damages (the past and future economic damages). These include birth trauma, loss of a limb, loss of an organ function, etc.

The number of lawsuits have been reduced in tort reform states. Most of these states now require an Affidavit or Certificate of Merit from a qualified expert. This is the best part of Tort Reform IMO. People are less likely to take on questionable cases if they have to shell out $500-1000 bucks up front to get an expert to sign off.

It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

I am a claims manager for a large health system (I handle medical malpractice, general liability, employment practice litigation).

While it is true that physicians refrain from peeing in their own pond, they have no problem going into another part of their state or especially into other states and dumping all over a guy they will never see again.

As you indicate the costs involved are staggering. Most of the guys who routinely serve as expert witnesses are making up to $1,000 an hour to testify (the charges increase for deposition and are even more to appear live at trial). I am looking at a depo transcript right now where a plastic surgeon in Ohio admitted he made over $1M serving as an expert witness last year. For this reason the appeal to serve as an expert trumps any sense of loyalty.

The $500-1000 is referring to just singing the Affidavit of Merit. As I indicated a number of cases aren't being filed because the plaintiff has to shell that cost up front to get an expert to sign one with their filing. As I indicated above it has done a good job of weeding out the more questionable cases up front.

I agree that there are a number of meritorious cases, but it is probably not as high as you think. On average only 20% of medical malpractice claims filed result in an indemnity payment. That means 80% of the time parties are paying an extreme sum of money defending themselves on cases that have no merit. I just paid $500,000 defending a birth trauma cases that resulted in a unanimous defense verdict. It took the jury an hour to deliberate.

Tort Reform was a necessary evil because it stabilized the insurance market in those states. Insurance carriers were pulling out of these markets left and right. Every single state that has enacted tort reform has seen a significant reduction in malpractice premiums. New carriers have come into these markets to sell business. Conversely, the carriers are staying out of the non-tort reform states and prices have risen.

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

(06-04-2015 02:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

This is where you make no sense. If people have to pay far more than the $500-$1000 to get it rolling, they already do that prior to tort reform.

Malpractice attorneys make their living off of a percentage of the settlement, not hourly rates. If you have to pay a malpractice attorney an hourly rate, that tells you right there your case is junk.

The attorneys would hate that they cant file a non-case and get a quick $2000. But they would have no problem fuding a $1000 affadavit when they know the case is real.

Just because you have no money doesnt mean you have the right to cause others financial damages without recourse.

(06-04-2015 02:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

Then make the Bar Exam optional. Let the consumers decide who to represent them in court. If they chose a Lawyer with a BAR certificate they know they are getting at least an average lawyer. If they decide to go with a cheaper lawyer someone with out the BAR certificate then they run the risk. Open up the competition and lawyer price will decrease as competition increases.

(06-04-2015 02:44 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

This is where you make no sense. If people have to pay far more than the $500-$1000 to get it rolling, they already do that prior to tort reform.

Malpractice attorneys make their living off of a percentage of the settlement, not hourly rates. If you have to pay a malpractice attorney an hourly rate, that tells you right there your case is junk.

The attorneys would hate that they cant file a non-case and get a quick $2000. But they would have no problem fuding a $1000 affadavit when they know the case is real.

Just because you have no money doesnt mean you have the right to cause others financial damages without recourse.

That just isn't how it works my friend.

Why would I invest $1,000 when I know that isn't enough to seal the deal? I would be better of lighting it on fire for the heat. It would be like you putting $1,000 on a car knowing you will never fork over the rest of the asking price.

Med-mal and run of the mill personal injury are two very different things.

Med-mal is expensive as all hell and has all sorts of hurdles that must be cleared. It isn't like threatening Wal Mart and taking a quick settlement.

There are separate requirements for pleadings, witnesses, and experts. All of that makes it more expensive.

Most of your personal injury lawyers you see smearing their faces all over billboards do not do medical malpractice work.

The hurdle is not the initial $1,000, it's the ultimate cost.

(06-04-2015 02:48 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

Then make the Bar Exam optional. Let the consumers decide who to represent them in court. If they chose a Lawyer with a BAR certificate they know they are getting at least an average lawyer. If they decide to go with a cheaper lawyer someone with out the BAR certificate then they run the risk. Open up the competition and lawyer price will decrease as competition increases.

Why don't we do the same for doctors and nurses?

I mean, think about it, we all know what antibiotics we probably need right off the bat. Orthopedic doctors are really just carpenters.

So, sure, let the market handle it.

(06-04-2015 02:48 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

Then make the Bar Exam optional. Let the consumers decide who to represent them in court. If they chose a Lawyer with a BAR certificate they know they are getting at least an average lawyer. If they decide to go with a cheaper lawyer someone with out the BAR certificate then they run the risk. Open up the competition and lawyer price will decrease as competition increases.

Yea, and while we are at it, let's get rid of the Boards too, that'll help take care of these rising health costs. I mean people have webmd, why should they need to go to med school and take a test.

(06-04-2015 02:51 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:48 PM)DragonLair Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:36 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:24 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(06-04-2015 02:13 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  It's quite literally the worst part. Doctors don't like to say their coworkers and such screwed up. Most simply wish to stay silent, even under the most outrageous of circumstances.

The total number of claims is no real measure of anything.

BTW, a med-mal case will cost a LOT more than $500-1000, try anywhere from 50 to 300 times that.

That simply prices most people out of ever making a claim, real or not.

You'd also be shocked to see the number of people who support tort reform because they think they are shutting down frivolous cases and then are shocked and horrified to learn that when they are hurt somebody else considers their case frivolous. People are for tort reform until the realize it's about keeping them from suing, not saving money or helping doctors.

This whole country has been hoodwinked into thinking that frivolous lawsuits are some sort of epidemic. The media constantly mischaracterizes events to make them seem stupid. In reality, the whole movement is about denying regular people access to the courts, and denying them the ability to make things right when they are hurt.

People will keep supporting these 'reform's until one day they wake up and realize that they no longer have access to the civil court system, and by then it will be too late.

BTW, I don't do injury work.

The $500-$1000 he is talking about is the cost of an expert to say that someone screwed up... not the cost of the case. That's still probably light, but $5,000 would be way off the high end. $2500 is fairly common though certainly obvious ones would cost less. If you can't get this, you don't have a case so those other costs don't happen unless you have this.

The rest of your post isn't wrong... though it obviously depends on which side you are on as to whether things are good or bad.

A simple solution to the Texas problems would be to either create a public fund to pay for those reviews and/or create a panel that would and could provide expert opinions at no cost to the plaintiff, collecting some costs if they win. Of course, you can still pay for it privately if you disagree with the panel's interpretation and find a doctor who does as well.

Was married to a med-mal atty for 25+ years and managed her office. Certainly not an atty, but I saw the pros and cons of tort reform up close.

It ultimately doesn't matter. You will need far more than that. The only dollar figure that is going to tell you the likelihood of getting something rolling is the total cost.

The higher that hurdle, the less people can afford justice. Do we like living in a country where we determine your place before the law based on your bank account? The one place we are all supposed to be equal is the court system, and these laws ensure that doesn't happen.

Then make the Bar Exam optional. Let the consumers decide who to represent them in court. If they chose a Lawyer with a BAR certificate they know they are getting at least an average lawyer. If they decide to go with a cheaper lawyer someone with out the BAR certificate then they run the risk. Open up the competition and lawyer price will decrease as competition increases.

Why don't we do the same for doctors and nurses?

I mean, think about it, we all know what antibiotics we probably need right off the bat. Orthopedic doctors are really just carpenters.

So, sure, let the market handle it.

Subtitute HeartofDixie for GT and everyone else for Cumberland:

I watched a special a couple years back about tort reform that had taken place in Missouri. It was billed as the strongest tort reform in the country at the time (although that may not be the case now). It was pitched to the public as a way to keep medical costs from rising, but it didn't accomplish that because in reality, lawsuits comprise an infinitesimal amount of healthcare costs.

Doesn't mean frivolous lawsuits should be ignored, but when politicians try to blame out of control healthcare costs on lawsuits, it's a talking point and nothing more.

(06-04-2015 02:59 PM)Niner National Wrote:  I watched a special a couple years back about tort reform that had taken place in Missouri. It was billed as the strongest tort reform in the country at the time (although that may not be the case now). It was pitched to the public as a way to keep medical costs from rising, but it didn't accomplish that because in reality, lawsuits comprise an infinitesimal amount of healthcare costs.

Doesn't mean frivolous lawsuits should be ignored, but when politicians try to blame out of control healthcare costs on lawsuits, it's a talking point and nothing more.

Well put.

Like I said before, tort reform is a cost shifting mechanism, not a cost reducing one.

(06-04-2015 02:22 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The most deserving client in the world may have next to no chance of winning. You deny them access in the end with these laws. You deny them access and shift the burden of their injury onto society at large and the government.

I agree with your passion and the right of all to seek redress... but I guess my question is, how are they the most deserving client in the world if they have next to no chance of winning their case? Because they're a little old lady that you feel sorry for?

As for shifting the burden, that's true... but since they have next to no chance of winning, that's not a big burden being shifted that wouldn't otherwise be shifted there anyway (someone who had a bad result, but through no fault of anyone).

If you eliminate the obstacle of finding competent people to evaluate the general merit of the case... not to a 99th percentile, but to perhaps an 80th? then those people WILL get their day in court... and those between 80 and 100 MIGHT

Let the attorney's focus their limited resources on that smaller cohort, or as I suggested, let those few of that cohort that win help fund those who don't.