..."that's what the victim asked for in pre-trial settlement talks"

Seems to me that the victim KNEW what was acceptable to her - good thing for her that her LAWYER wanted to make 40% of a MUCH larger number....otherwise, her case wouldn't have been worth taking, right?

So are there any urologists out there making $1.2 million a year? The average annual compensation for a family doctor is roughly $140,000 a year these days. Yes, surgical subspecialists make more (of course, they train for many more years), but the family doctor is the "gatekeeper" to the entire healthcare system....and makes about the same, after four years of college, four years of medical school and three years of residency, as a first year associate in a large law firm in most major metropolitan areas....

Even if there were urologists making $300,000 per quarter or $1.2 million a year, (and there aren't....) that would still be only about ONE TENTH of the $11.2 million contingent fee a plaintiff's lawyer would take home on a SINGLE $28 million verdict...which is really good, since personal injury lawyers lose 81% of the cases they try in court and need the periodic windfall settlement or verdict to cover all the times they took cases that WEREN'T big winners for them...

You'll note that I didn't say a single word about what the plaintiff's quality of life or injuries were worth - because NO ONE can attach a consistent and fair price tag to someone else's pain, suffering or quality of life. There is no barometer with which a jury can assess or determine a sensible number - so juries in different areas of the country - or even different areas of a STATE, Philadelphia being a case in point - award widely disparate amounts for identical injuries. In Sanford, permanent incontinence may be worth $28 million - in Lancaster, PA, it may be worth only $500,000. Who's to say that the victim in Lancaster's pain and suffering is worth LESS than the victim in Sanford? A uniform amount for pain and suffering would level the playing field - while STILL allowing legitimately injured plaintiff's to recover all they need in quantifiable economic damages...

Economic damages can compensate a legitimately injured victim for virtually EVERYTHING he or she needs to be as comfortable as possible, including items as mundane as house cleaning and lawn care in addition to the more commonly referenced medical expenses and lost wages. Also included in economic damages, which NO ONE seeks to limit, are things like refitting a home or vehicle to meet the needs of the victim, physicial therapy, lost POTENTIAL wages (a lifetime's worth, if necessary) and all the benefits, including retirement plans, of that lost income. A child - or a child's surviving patents - can conceivably be awarded 50-60 years' worth of lost income and benefits.

Economic damages also cover psychological counseling both for the victim and the victim's family members, child care if the victim is a primary caregiver and literally ANYTHING ELSE to which a quantifiable number can be attached. Do unlimited economic damages MAKE IT BETTER? Of course not. Do they justify the injury or provide a victim with a jackpot that somehow makes it all worth while? Of course not. Do unlimited NON-economic damages do that either? Again, of course not. But there are those who would have the public believe that injuries are somehow not compensated or victims are somehow not "taken care of" in the absence of unlimited NON-economic damages, and that simply isn't true. How often have we heard someone who opposes liability reforms say: "If non-economic damages are capped, this poor child's life is only worth $250,000 - that's only $4,000 a year for a lifetime of care...." That argument would lead the uninformed to believe that the victim isn't eligible for ANY other damages - and that is simply false.

Actuarial experts calculate and testify to wide ranges of economic losses, and any plaintiff's attorney worth his or her JD will utilize such experts to maximize their client's potential compensation. Those who rely on a jury's compassion for a $20 or $30 million "pain and suffering" award aren't taking care of business as well as they should - or, are merely viewing non-economic damages for the value of a higher contingent fee....

Anonymous noted California's cap on non-economic damages without noting that ECONOMIC damages in California continue to be unlimited. The Olsen family, whose son was injured at birth, was awarded $42 MILLION in economic damages and $8 million in NON-economic damages.

A judge reduced that $8 million award to $250,000 in keeping with California's MICRA law - reducing their overall award to $42,250,000, to be paid as an annual annuity, increasing with each year of their son's life - MORE than enough to care for their son for a lifetime. The family ultimately chose to accept a smaller amount as a lump sum, but that was their choice.

A small hospital in Pennsylvania is currently trying to have a $4 million verdict reduced - so it won't have to close. How does it benefit the residents of an area to have NO access to health care because of a jury award?

Judges have wide latitude to influence or reduce awards - and that influence can be exercised without legislative action. Perhaps if more judges took the initiative to reduce clearly outrageous awards, we wouldn't have the problem many areas face.

Kevin,

Do you think this woman would trade her "jackpot" for the ability to pee again?

Would you?

Some jackpot.

"Because the person is charged same more or less by the doctor or virtually anybody, regardless of the quality of life they are going to have, if the medicine works. "

So because the doctor bills the same, the 80 year old and the 19 year old should get the same? That makes no sense.

"Constitution doesn’t even say how long the voir dire should last. But the efficacy for any system is also measured by its consistency and repeatability of the results. Why make the jury system a holy cow?"

What are you talking about? Do you even know the voir dire rules? Why make the jury system a "holy cow"? I'm with you, why make any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights a holy cow. They aren't that important. So far, you haven't shown any statistical evidence that the jury system doesn't produce consistent results, and certainly none that any other system would do better.

"Nope, why not the mean American wage ? That sounds fair."

Would the physician take the mean if he was the victim? I think not. Oh, that's right, you want to be a protected class all the way around.

" The lost quality of life is not even worth, what Donald trump earns in his life-time. We are just trying to measure the immeasurable."

Sure it is. We do it all the time. It just isn't easy.

I have gone to that doctor for 25 years and he has been fantastic throughout so many problems I have had, some that other doctors couldn't/didn't do anything about. There is no way he would have ignored the patient's complaints...no way. He is one of the very few doctors who actually take time to listen to anything you want to say. What a travesty. And the award the jury came up with! No wonder 41% of Americans don't have health insurance. It's because of this exact kind of situation that is creating shortages of health care professionals.