Frivolous medical lawsuits ... like the one Mrs. Santorum won?

[JJackFlash]

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., says that the No. 1 health care crisis in his state is medical lawsuit abuse and in the past he's called for a $250,000 cap on non-economic damage awards or awards for pain and suffering. "We need to do something now to fix the medical liability problem in this country," he declared at a rally in Washington D.C., this past spring.

But Santorum's wife sued a doctor for $500,000 in 1999. She claimed that a botched spinal manipulation by her chiropractor led to back surgery, pain and suffering, and sued for twice the amount of a cap Santorum has supported.

http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=1300271

[catmother]

1. i have 2 words. phony bastard. n/t

[JJackFlash]

3. He has some problems with consistency

Here's a good paragraph on Ricky:

"Somebody needs to ask Santorum some questions about his allies. Does the Senator stand with those citizens of his state who exercised their right to select a school board in Dover, or with his ally Pat Robertson - who condemned them to Godless destruction for their action? Does he stand with his own Catholic Church, which accepts evolution as "proven" and says that anti-scientific religiosity leads to "fundamentalism," or is he a "cafeteria Catholic"? Does he stand with the President he has supported for so long, or with those who consider that President's management of the war incompetent?

The Senator from Pennsylvania should be careful, or his own words will come back ... to bite him."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/rick-santorum-down-boy_b_10515.html

[acmejack]

2. Makes one curious as to how many of these guys profited from a tort.

or medical malpractice suit. Delay did, too. Interesting item for a little research...

[1932]

4. You know why rich people only want to cap pain and suffering?

They don't want to cap economic losses, because they want to recover for their lost income.

They never talk about capping economic losses. A doctor would NEVER ask for economic losses to be capped.

But poor people and the unemployed don't have high economic losses. The only thing that REALLY encourages a doctor to take care when treating poor people other than his or her conscience is having to compensate for pain & suffering. If you cap pain and suffering, then you take some of the burden off the medical community from worrying about giving poor people quality care.

[No Exit]

5. Interesting take! Makes sense. n/t

[BlueIris]

6. (Almost) Exactly what I wanted to post.

Except, I'd add that nowadays...trust me, the only thing that ultimately motivates any physician I know to do any kind of decent job with the medical care of anyone, poor, comfortable, semi-comfortable or flat-out wealthy, is the threat of a lawsuit with a significant damage award attatched to it. And I work and live in what is still considered to be a community with half-way decent healthcare resources--and a state medical board that is actually not filled with assholes or incompetents. Sorry, rich/well-insured DUers. That is the only real kind of accountability they face.

[1932]

9. I have seen in my life a direct correlation between the limitations

jurisdictions place on medical negligence suits and the number of people I know who have been the victims of SERIOUS medical negligence.

In the worst jurisdictions, I'm talking about heartbreaking stories including one of a newlywed dying from a hospital misdiagnosing a post-surgery complication caused by the operating surgeon's negligence, and stories about HMOs delaying the expensive treatment so long that much more damage and costs were incurred than would have been if the person was treated effectively the first day. Why does the HMO make the calculation to delay treatment? Because the state makes it almost impossible to sue. It means that there really is no real cost in delaying and denying treatmen other than having your patient die and having to collect your bill from the estate.

Incidentally, this is a state that requires a panel of doctors to first approve a suit. When lawyers found that no doctors in the state would serve on the panels, they turned to out-of-state doctors. Then the legislature outlawed out of state doctors from sitting on the panels. This state, by the way, has no law firms that I know of that specialize in medical negligence. If you're luck enough to find a lawyer who wants to tilt at a windmill for you, usually it's someone who has no idea what he or she is doing and they don't put any money into the case to find good experts and preparing for trial.

[No Exit]

7. "It's not 'lawsuit abuse' when WE do it!!!!!"

It's only "lawsuit abuse" when the common people do it.

[spindrifter]

8. Washington voters

defeated an effort by insurance and m.d.'s to cap med. mal. recoveries. When it gets right down to it, people get nervous about having to give up the possibility of getting a recovery that will pay for that small number of catastrophic situations that are out there. We all recognize that big insurance is behind this topic--and they are not as sympathetic as any other player in the field.

[TheGunslinger]

10. "Do as I say, not as I do."