Tort reform driving lawyers out of Nevada

Its fascinating to see that plaintiff’s attorneys blame “tainted” or “poisoned” juries for their failure to return verdicts in favor of their clients. The tort feforms that were passed have NO effect on juries–a jury can find someone liable for malpractice whether the cap is 350k or 3 million regardless. All that tort refrom has done is take away the settlement bludgeon that has kept frivolous cases out of the hands of juries.

$10K to review a case? How long does it take to review a case? I would think even the most complicated cases could be reviewed at least for “yes or no” malpractice status in a couple of hours.

Even if it took 20 hours, that’s a pretty good hourly rate.

“John Edwards once hired 33 experts before he finally found one who said the case was malpractice.”

According to. . . .? You?

So do we know how much insurance rates have declined in Nevada as compared to states w/o “reform”? Or how much health care has improved? Or how much defensive medicine has been reduced?

If, as Kevin claims, practicing medicine there is much more attractive, surely we know the answers to these questions. That was the point, wasn’t it?

Or was it just to keep injured people from getting a lawyer and insurers from losing money?

Unless you’re the one who is injured by a physician’s negligence. But hey, who wants to think about those people once they leave the hospital or die, right?

You’re a doctor, you’re far too important to actually care.

Which awards are obscene? Given that the bulk of most awards go to the victim’s medical bills – ie. you, it appears that the health care system is the largest beneficiary.

Try again. Maybe with some logic.

Caps on awards (from the attorney’s perspective) are just like Medicaid payments (from the physician’s perspective). Attorneys can learn to get by on less. If the case is solid, you don’t need all those expensive experts, right? And BMWs are overrated anyway.

“Caps on awards (from the attorney’s perspective) are just like Medicaid payments (from the physician’s perspective). Attorneys can learn to get by on less. If the case is solid, you don’t need all those expensive experts, right? And BMWs are overrated anyway.”

Do you ever think about the victim? Do you ever think about the fact that caps on awards makes it harder for them to pay you, the provider?

Or is it all just some misguided attorney-doctor battle to you? Patient care isn’t something you think about?

“Do you ever think about the fact that caps on awards makes it harder for them to pay you, the provider?”

WHAT??? Obviously a novice.

I see all comers regardless of their ability to pay and treat them to the best of my ability. If attorneys cared about these “victims,” they would accept less of the patients’ money to do the right thing. Take away some of your 40% and the “victim” doesn’t matter so much to you anymore. It’s all you are about.