DarkOmen42 wrote:
I'm talking about stopping the cockwads that sue for fast settlements. If the loser has to pay court costs and attorney fees it will cut down on bogus lawsuits because then they will have something to lose, which the ambulance chasers currently do not.
In some jurisdictions that does apply (per my spouse). I had thought it was all (in CA, because we did have reforms here years ago) which is why I was puzzled at your post. But I checked with him as it's his area of expertise...he said essentially in some jurisdictions it's mandatory, in others discretional (and in some you can't).
In California it's ALWAYS discretional, meaning the other side has to ask for it, then it's up to the judge. Which IMHO is a good way of doing it, to weed out those who truly believed they had a legitimate case...and the bullshit ones hoping for the quickie settlement.
I'm not happy with the caps system though. Mind you I don't want to see health care bankrupted...but I've seen cases where I think people should be awarded a whoooole lot more based on sheer fucking incompetence at multiple levels. I'm not talking 'Wah, I'm not happy with my boobs' (Though Tara Reid should sue, just saying)...but 'Whoops, Mom and baby are dead because she bled to death because the doctor wouldn't come in because he was tired and cranky, and the nurse was screaming at people, and then they couldn't find her blood type, then by the time they decide 'oh shit, let's at least save the baby', they don't have any prep. for it and the infant is dead now too' (and I'm leaving tons of shit out, like someone calling for transfusion of the WRONG BLOOD TYPE, because it's an actual incident)...in a case like THAT when there's just failures at every goddamn level...the caps should be lifted.
There are ways around the caps in extreme circumstances, but I think that's when there's other liabilities as well and not just malpractice.
The real problem is in the bad cases, it's really not about the money for the families. The doctors aren't going to go to jail (they almost never do). They're not going to lose their license (they almost never do). So the only 'justice' for a family is civil suits. It's not about the money, because no amount really can replace that person...though in instances of the person being a breadwinner in the family, it does help cushion the impact and hardship.
But really, if say, a doctor was doing some emergency dental work on your kid because he or she had a fall, and forgot to attach a heart moniter while they were under anesthesia and your child died as a result (because they didn't realize the distress until it was too late...another actual case, though it involved a dentist) ...and that person wasn't going to spend a day in jail over it, or even have their license taken away...wouldn't you want to punish them financially if nothing else?
I know you're not talking about those cases. But it's hard for any family member to be rational. In many instances there isn't a real case, it's just...a shitty fact of life that SOME people die. Maybe the same scenario but no failure of care, the child just has an adverse reaction...and dies. Parents want someone to blame. It's not about dollars, it's about it being 'wrong' so someone has to be 'punished' or 'blamed'. =\
Anyhoo, the only bad aspect of requiring them to pay is that it gives a lot of leverage to insurance companies to force low settlements, as mid to low income people cannot afford the risks of loss, especially when the insurance threatens to make an example of them and put on a case they cannot HOPE to match, with experts, etc. And that does happen too.