The Myth of America's 'Lawsuit Crisis'

[G_j]

Studies Show Claims About Ins. Rates and Access to MDs Have No Foundation


http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1805

Oct. 6, 2004

Cheney’s Claims in V.P. Debate and New Bush-Cheney Medical Malpractice Ad Continue Campaign of Deception and Distortion

Government Data and Studies Show Bush-Cheney Claims About Insurance Rates and Access to Doctors Have No Foundation

..more..
---------------------

The Myth of America's 'Lawsuit Crisis'

Stephanie Mencimer, Washington Monthly

How the media helps the insurance industry and the GOP with wildly
exaggerated tales of Americans' overarching sense of legal entitlement.

http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/20082 /

Last December, Newsweek featured a cover package by Stuart Taylor and Evan Thomas that blared: "Lawsuit Hell: Doctors. Teachers. Coaches. Ministers. They all share a common fear: being sued on the job." Paired with a weeklong tie-in on NBC News and online chats on MSNBC.com, the article claimed that because "Americans will sue each other at the slightest provocation," the country is suffering from an "onslaught of litigation" that costs Americans $200 billion a year. The story was full of tales claiming to illustrate Americans' overarching sense of legal entitlement and desire to "win a jackpot from a system that allows sympathetic juries to award plaintiffs not just real damages…but millions more for the impossible-to-measure 'pain and suffering' and highly arbitrary 'punitive damages.'"

Among others, the story featured a softball tournament organizer, a minister, and a doctor who all claimed to have modified their behavior because they were terrified of lawsuits. Ryan Warner, an insurance salesman in Page, Ariz., told Newsweek that he had recently cancelled an annual charity softball tournament because an injured player had sued the city of Page for $100,000. Warner said that he worried he might be added as a defendant.

The story as published, though, lacks a few critical details. Newsweek didn't mention, for instance, that the 1997 federal Volunteer Protection Act ensures that people like Warner are immunized from these types of lawsuits. The article also excluded the injured man, Richard Sawyer, a locomotive engineer who suffered a dislocated ankle and a spiral fracture to the fibula – and missed months of work as a result – after he slid into a base that was supposed to break away on impact but didn't because the city hadn't followed the manufacturer's instructions for maintaining these fixtures properly, according to Kevin Garrison, Sawyer's lawyer.

The event organizers had insurance – required by the city – to protect against exactly this kind of situation, but Warner cancelled the tournament anyway because he says the lawsuit was "a hassle." Canceling the tournament proved a smart PR move, as it brought out an immense amount of pressure on Sawyer to drop his suit, says Garrison. The case was settled this January for an undisclosed amount and Warner was never named. In fact, the tournament has been revived and scheduled for early September.

..more..
----------------------
U.S. Businesses File Four Times More Lawsuits Than Private Citizens
And Are Sanctioned Much More Often for Frivolous Suits

But Corporate America and Political Allies Bush and Cheney Campaign to
Limit Citizens' Rights to Sue

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1799 .

WASHINGTON, D.C. – American businesses file four times as many lawsuits as do individuals represented by trial attorneys, and they are penalized by judges much more often for pursuing frivolous litigation, according to a report issued today by Public Citizen.

The survey of case filings in two states (Arkansas and Mississippi) and two local jurisdictions (Cook County, Ill., and Philadelphia, Pa.) in 2001 found that businesses were 3.3 to 5.8 times more likely to file lawsuits than were individuals. This comes as businesses and politicians are campaigning to limit citizens’ rights to sue over everything from medical malpractice damages to defective products. By way of comparison, the number of American consumers (281 million) outnumbers the number of businesses in America (7 million) by 40 times.

The report also found that businesses and their attorneys were 69 percent more likely than individual tort plaintiffs and their attorneys to be sanctioned by federal judges for filing frivolous claims or defenses. The report, Frequent Filers: Corporate Hypocrisy in Accessing the Courts, is available...

“Corporations think America is too litigious only when they are on the receiving end of a lawsuit,” said Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen. “But when they feel aggrieved, businesses are far more likely to take their beef to court than are consumers.”

..more..

[unblock]

1. remember that bush sued to stop the vote counting

[SEpatriot]

2. Oh, it's a huge joke.

By repetition and focus on carefully crafted propaganda, big business and big insurance has created the "lawsuit crisis" myth. Say it enough, people will believe it must be true.

[barb162]

4. right, I have been talking about this phony "issue" for years

it is very hard to convince people this is a totally phony issue. They have heard it so mnay times on TV, the news.

[G_j]

7. U.S. Businesses File Four Times More Lawsuits Than Private Citizens

How many private citizens have any idea if this?

"Myth" is the correct term.

[barb162]

11. oh yeah business to business lawsuits are jamming the courts

but they don't want the little guy suing them. And when you tell this to people they look at you like you're nuts. I do it anyway. The endless propaganda about tort reform is only aimed at the little guy; it is very anti-consumer

[G_j]

13. to put it bluntly

some of these people are like vampires and they hate the idea of their victims defending themselves.

[unblock]

3. i had to sue an insurance company to pay for a car crash

i was a passenger in a cab, so it OBVIOUSLY wasn't my fault, and i had reams of documentation for medical expenses far in excess of the insurance maximum.

but they wouldn't pay unless i sued.

why? because they had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO LOSE by refusing to pay. the worst that could possibly happen to them is that they pay later what they should have paid earlier. in other words, forcing the insured to sue is a win-win for the insurance company.

so supposedly I'M the litigious one? i don't think so.

businesses need to have incentives to follow the law, not just to use the courts as a business tool.

[barb162]

5. that sounds about the way it works. A lot of insurers aren't

going to hand out money . I hope you got all you deserved. Were you made whole and did they pay your legal?

[unblock]

6. no way was i made whole

i got the insurance maximum from both the cab company (whose car WITH NO SEATBELTS IN THE BACK stalled out in the MIDDLE of a #*%$ing FREEWAY and the car behind that rammed us.

combined, it did pay for the medical and legal bills (i got a break on the legal because my lawyer is a relative) but the effect on my career was severe. you try getting an impressive wall street bonus when you're in physical therapy three days a week after two surgeries and can't chew solid food for a year.

[barb162]

8. I am in the insurance business and hate it for the whole sick

way it works. Were you injured in a no fault state and is that the state in which you sued. Did you have a section in the complaint for loss of wages, future earnings, etc.

[unblock]

9. new jersey, yes, a no-fault state.

there was a section for loss of future earnings and such, which ran about 10 times the insurance maximum.

but all the lawyers in my family said the best i'll ever get is the insurance maximum.

the reason? cab companies can easily see to it that they have no assets when it comes time to collect. sure, i probably could have won a judgement for several hundreds of thousands, but the cab company would have just stopped replacing the cabs in its fleet, and the owner would just start up an "unrelated" cab company and guess what? i win the case but can't collect because there are no assets left other than a dozen cabs in bad repair.

technically it's illegal for the cab company to do this, but when there's that much money at stake, they get a lawyer who can find a way for them to get away with it.


as for the insurance payment, i think they should be paid WITH INTEREST (preferably at a slightly punitive rate) back to the point of loss. at least that would give SOME incentive for the insurance company to pay on time.

[barb162]

12. you are absolutely 100% right; claimants are getting f----d.

"i think they should be paid WITH INTEREST (preferably at a slightly punitive rate)"

[SarahB]

10. Lawsuits are our only protection.

For an average person, in any way a victim of negligence or intentionally damage by a company, physician, or whomever have little other recourse. They right to sue is all we have really. Most of the push for tort reform seems to have more to do with increasing the profit margins for insurance companies than anything else.