Who Really Gets Burned With Tort Reform?

[marmar]

from YES! Magazine:



Who Really Gets Burned With Tort Reform?
It's not about protecting ordinary people. It's about the profits of the people and corporations who cause injuries.

by Doug Pibel
posted Mar 15, 2012


A long-running propaganda campaign has convinced a large segment of the U.S. population that “tort reform”—limiting damage awards, making it harder to sue, and limiting access to courts—is good for all of us.

It’s been a simple, two-part attack: Threaten access to health care (“Doctors are quitting, because of the cost of malpractice lawsuits”) and play on moral outrage (“Undeserving people get millions through frivolous lawsuits”).

We’ve heard that we have to clamp down on the runaway results produced by ambulance-chasing attorneys.

The movie Hot Coffee looks at the reality. The title refers to the infamous Stella Liebeck case. You know the one: A lady spills McDonald’s coffee in her lap, then cashes in for millions. Crazy, right? ..............(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.yesmagazine.org/issues/9-strategies-to-end-corporate-rule/who-really-gets-burned-with-tort-reform

[xchrom]

1. I hate the whole 'tort reform' thing.

It's taken as biblical fact that it needs to be 'fixed' - it's a lie.

[joeglow3]

2. The author must be willfully ignorant

He asks:

"The line is that there’s an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits. If that’s the case, then why are we still talking about Stella Liebeck 20 years later? If we’re living in a world of foolish tort claims, why can’t they come up with a case—many cases—every year?"

How ignorant is this guy? Has he never heard of the Stella Awards.

[marmar]

4. If you've never heard of them, who does that make ignorant?

nt

[woo me with science]

3. This is one of the slickest scams they have been able to perpetrate

to get people to vote against their own interests.

[marmar]

7. Yep. And I'm shocked at the number of people who buy it hook, line and sinker.

nt

[jsmirman]

10. Agreed

voting to eliminate one's own day in court should a corporation do something truly awful to you.

Which never happens... maybe ask the residents of Youngstown

[libtodeath]

5. It is another mythical bogeyman of the right

[joeglow3]

6. Sadly, I wish it were the case

2 married friends of mine are OB/GYN's. Sadly, I don't think people realize how easy and often (statistically speaking) it is for something to go wrong when delivering a baby. They are constantly being sued, as it is am emotional time when this awful thing happens to you. Most recentely, they were sued by a couple from the middle east. The doctor delivered their first child, a girl. The mother would not stop bleeding and they ultimately had to perform an emergency hysterectomy. They were sued by the couple because they denied the couple the ability to have a son.

Needless to say, they have never lost a case, but I cannot tell you how many times they have been sued and how many of those times they have had to take valuable time out of their day to pull records, get interviewed by lawyers, etc. Fortunately, not many make it to a court room, but a handful have and all have been people emotionally trying to exact punishment or get riches off of something that was a sad, but common tragedy.

[alc]

9. yep. and every time this comes up

It seems like the focus is on the doctors who "can afford it". The group practice with surgeons making $100s thousands or millions a year CAN afford it. We MAY need more of them but in some cases it's debatable.

We DO need more family practitioners, and particularly ones in small practices or solo who spend time to understand the patient rather than being a part of an assembly line. I know 2 family doctors who run solo practices. Their expenses are huge. They loose money on medicare patients - both have limited the number they see but haven't quit taking them yet. Their salary is about what their staff salary is. And they don't give themselves a 1/2 million $ bonus at the end of the year. One of them skips a paycheck a few times a year (there's no money) and ends up with total yearly income less than the office manager.

Their insurance isn't as bad as an OB/GYN, but it is a significant dent in their ability to run a practice. One of my friends has been looking at joining a group practice for a couple of years. Most only allow 15 minutes of doctor time per patient, but there's no concern over whether or not the staff will be paid this month.

I'm all for helping this type of doctor. Maybe we can let patients decide if they want a doctor who will see them for as long as it takes, talk to them on the phone as often as needed and really know them. Or if they want 15 minutes of a doctor's time each visit, a phone number to talk to "someone", and the ability to sue for any amount for any complaint. Let doctors post their 'liability report" on the wall like restaurants post their health inspection. If you want a "A" (unlimited lawsuits welcome) walk away when you see a "B" (maximum $1 million) or an "F" (the court will laugh at you even if the doctor really screwed up).

[Joe Shlabotnik]

18. It can be brutal on small business too.

When I owned a landscaping/snowplowing company, I spent a considerable amount of time and personal expense defending our service against slip and fall lawsuits. I think what often happened, is that someone slipped and fell, and figured they'd sue the medical building, or big box store, or convenience store property managers figuring "hey, they're big wealthy corporations". But naturally the insurance companies would automatically drag us in as a 3rd party. The headaches and cost of insurance was one deciding factor for me closing down the company. I couldn't compete with fly by night competitors who worked with no insurance, or huge companies with deep pockets and legal teams who could afford to play a long game.

[The Philosopher]

8. This is crazy

The movie also reveals the real-world effects of tort reform.

...

A young woman finds that she can’t sue her employer—Halliburton—even after she was raped when the company failed to provide her with safe housing while she worked in Iraq. The company forced her to sign a mandatory arbitration clause—another variety of tort reform—when she was hired. And the company got to pick the arbitrator who would hear her claim. Her case was so shocking that it led to a federal law restoring the right to sue for her and others like her.

All Republicans are for is creating the space to do what one wants, others be damned; and they're waging a war on those who don't have the money, the connections, the influence to fight back. They are a sham of a party. They don't represent freedom. They do not represent individualism; nor do they represent values of any type, family, Christian or otherwise. They are the party of the manipulators, the party of the selfish, the party of power gluttons. And because people fell for their lies, their fast talk, misleading remarks and their perpetual behavior of misconception and shallow argumentation, they are the party of the fools.

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. The story I remember from that movie

was the young boy (I think in Nebraska?) who was permanently disabled in a car wreck and tort reform limited the amount he was awarded for care for the rest of his life. That money is gone and now the state has to pay to care for him.

Stupid wingnuts voting against everyone's best interests.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

12. Its not a monolithic argument as some would have us believe

Medical malpractice reform is called for. Product liability maybe not so much. Corporate liability suits need to get easier.

[jsmirman]

13. Wow, I think

I tend to disagree with you on just about everything that you post, but this is something I probably agree with.

[hifiguy]

14. "Tort reform" is bullshit on stilts and steroids.

There are plenty of ways the courts can deal with frivolous lawsuits under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and their state counterparts. These include dismissal for failure to state a claim, sanctions (including awards of attorney fees) for filing frivolous or unfounded litigation, and summary judgment.

I have worked as a judicial clerk and as an attorney and know full well there is one reason behind "tort reform" and that is to protect Big Bu$ine$$ by shutting the "little people" out of the judicial system. Anyone who tells you anything else is lying through their teeth.

[starroute]

15. You can think Karl Rove for much of this

He didn't invent the issue, but he realized back in the early 90's that it was a good way to get George Bush elected governor of Texas, because it could both attract corporate donors and serve as a seemingly populist issue to appeal to voters. Even today, Rove still regularly shows up to speak at Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse events.


http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2005/032005/wheat.html

The “lawsuit lottery’s” all-time greatest winners are George W. Bush and chief Bush strategist Karl Rove, who purchased their first winning ticket together in Texas in 1994.

The four issues that Rove had candidate Bush hammer in the 1994 Texas gubernatorial race were education, welfare, juvenile crime and civil justice. Reporters James Moore and Wayne Slater, in their book on Rove, Bush’s Brain, write that education and juvenile crime already were hot political issues in Texas. Bush added welfare reform. “Later, we added tort reform,” the book quotes Rove saying. “I sort of talked him into that one.”

Rove “talked him into that one” because the other three issues were not cash cows that could finance the exorbitant campaign needed to beat Governor Ann Richards.

In contrast, Rove had learned that “tort reform” — limits on victims’ rights to sue corporations and other wrongdoers for compensation in the civil justice system — is a Republican treasure trove.


http://www.salon.com/2004/08/28/moore_rove_swift_boat/

The big moneyman behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is Bob Perry and, not surprisingly, the only visible connection between Perry and Swift Boat accuser John O’Neill is their mutual relationship with Karl Rove. Perry worked with Rove early in the consultant’s political ascension. The Houston homebuilder, who has developed into the biggest giver to Republican causes and candidates in Texas, was the finance chairman of the 1986 Texas gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements. Rove managed that race for Clements and Perry was an important fundraiser, helping Rove generate the donor lists he used to rebuild the Texas Republican Party, and, ultimately, finance the climb of his prize client, George W. Bush.

Rove had already convinced Perry to begin raising money to elect state judges — funds used to help launch the Texas Civil Justice League. The Civil Justice League was Rove’s initial surrogate organization and carried the message that trial lawyers were bad people who were screwing up the business climate with frivolous lawsuits. The chorus singing about the evils of lawyers in Texas was later joined by Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (an organization that Rove helped grow and with which he maintains close contact today), and yet another front group called Texans for Lawsuit Reform. As they chanted their messages across the state about the horrors of litigation, Rove’s political clients were able to publicly acknowledge the concerns of these groups. Thus an entirely artificial movement, conceived and funded by Rove, was used to change the state’s judicial system and, of course, became an essential step in Rove’s master plan to elect Bush governor and then president.

[cbayer]

16. I think it's very important to make a distinction between general tort reform and

medical malpractice reform.

There is an enormous difference between the McDonald's coffee case and what John Edwards did to some innocent doctors.

The arguments against medical malpractice reform are lame. It is a system badly in need of reform.

[dems_rightnow]

17. Go look at the back of your phone book.

Right there, in the most expensive advertising slot I will almost guarantee you is a personal injury lawyer.

It's an extraordinarily profitable and lucrative career, and is responsible for much of the disgust that people have for attorneys. So yes to tort reform. But not by limiting amounts that can be collected by injured parties, but by limiting attorney fees.