Reducing the jackpot

These physicians should have settled, using the retrospectoscope:

Lawyers for the gynecologist hit with that $28 million medical malpractice award two weeks ago have asked a Sanford judge to reduce it to less than $300,000. Attorneys for Dr. Robert Bowles say that’s what the victim asked for in pre-trial settlement talks.

Comments

Anonymous
Doesn’t she know that not being able to pee for the rest of her life is only worth what that surgeon made in the first 3 quarters of ’05? Luckily CA has caps so she doesn’t get uppity about what her quality of life is worth!
DBR
…”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.
Anonymous
“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?”
What makes you think that the doctor just refused to settle, rather than the plaintiff’s lawyer? Considering the offer was probably made BY the lawyer with his client’s permission, your statement makes no sense.
“…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…”
Of course, as you well know, but conveniently forget (par for the course for you Donna) most cases settle, so your numbers don’t really add up, do they?
By the way, without knowing more about the verdict, or how it was broken down, we have no idea if $28 million will actually be the ultimate award. If the bulk of it was noneconomic damages, it most certainly will not. So even your math on how much the lawyer would get (if you knew the terms of the contract) is speculative at best.
“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.”
You simply don’t have the statistical basis to make this claim. Again, speculation at best. What’s more, why should the type of injury determine the award as opposed to the quality of life lost? And where in the Constitution is there a guarantee that every jury verdict must be exactly the same as the other? Or do you consider all people the same?
“Who’s to say that the victim in Lancaster’s pain and suffering is worth LESS than the victim in Sanford?”
Probably the people who heard the evidence. Novel idea, huh? To have people who actually have heard the evidence decide the value of the case, as opposed to purchased legislators who know nothing about it. You know, the people who considered the testimony about the amount of pain, the disruption in the life, etc. Again, since you don’t know the pain and suffering amount of the award in either case, you’re just speculating.
“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. “
Now you’re not just speculating, you’re lying. How exactly would a jury determine a child’s lost wages? They couldn’t, they’d have no present earnings, no idea of the child’s career, etc. I have a suggestion though, let’s base it off the earnings of the defendant doctor, okay? You can eliminate noneconomic damages if every plaintiff can have the estimated lost wages of someone with the defendant doctor’s earnings. That sounds fair.
“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.”
So in other words, since the economic damages, which will all be paid to other people, including much of it to physicians, this child’s lost quality of life was worth $250,000, about what the average California surgeon earns in about 9 months.
Tell me, Donna, if you were like the Olsen child, brain-damaged, blind, unable to talk and unable to walk without leg braces as a result of someone’s negligence, would that lost quality of life be worth about $250K to you?
“A small hospital in Pennsylvania is currently trying to have a $4 million verdict reduced – so it won’t have to close.”
Can you give us the name of the hospital, the name of the case, and its insurance carrier? Or did it not have coverage?
“Perhaps if more judges took the initiative to reduce clearly outrageous awards, we wouldn’t have the problem many areas face.”
Many do, as you well know. Often that’s why cases settle between verdict and appeal. Probably why the Olsen’s took less. But so far you haven’t told us why any of the verdicts you reference are outrageous, because you don’t know much about them. Maybe your new nickname should be “Speculation at Best.”
Anonymous
Kevin,
Do you think this woman would trade her “jackpot” for the ability to pee again?
Would you?
Some jackpot.
Anirban
why should the type of injury determine the award as opposed to the quality of life lost?
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. If You are a painter , the doctor can’t charge you more for surgery on your hand. Had it been the case I’ll be the first one to buy your logic.
where in the Constitution is there a guarantee that every jury verdict must be exactly the same as the other
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?
if every plaintiff can have the estimated lost wages of someone with the defendant doctor’s earnings. That sounds fair.
Nope, why not the mean American wage ? That sounds fair.
So in other words, since the economic damages, which will all be paid to other people, including much of it to physicians, this child’s lost quality of life was worth $250,000, about what the average California surgeon earns in about 9 months.
The economic damages are supposed to be paid to those who will provide service for that child and it ain’t free. It is not to be pocketed. 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.
Anonymous
“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.
Anirban
So because the doctor bills the same, the 80 year old and the 19 year old should get the same? That makes no sense.
It is not possible because the regulations doesn’t allow it otherwise .A doctor could charge somebody assuming the future risk the way insurance companies do. Then there should be no problem reimbursing someone based on quality of life measure.
It does make sense.
Do you even know the voir dire rules?
What made you to presuppose that?
I’m with you, why make any of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights a holy cow. They aren’t that important
Then you can’t cloak yourself behind a jury system and hide behind the constitution.
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
Aren’t we talking ‘bout some brain-damaged paralyzed kid? Any way neither a lawyer will take the mean wage.
Sure it is. We do it all the time. It just isn’t easy.
It’s very easy for you. Just add 00000000
Anonymous
I think I would much rather be able to pee normally than receive a jackpot of $28 million. It’s not worth having to catherize yourself for the rest of your life!
I have been to this doctor to get advice for treating my uterine fibroids and he was trying to talk me into getting a hysterectomy. I am glad I did my research and had the ablation treatment performed and I am so glad I decided against any kind of surgery!

Previous post: Cover the Uninsured Week

Next post: DEA and pain

Reducing the jackpot

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels