Are juries getting smarter?

Maybe some are realizing the ill-effects of jackpot awards:

This is the latest law suit to go to trial in Madison County and end with zero being awarded to the plaintiff.
Maybe Zimmerman’s statement rang true with jurors that he would have tested for cancer if there were any hint of a problem — not only for the woman’s health, but because he and other local doctors fear being sued.
People are fed up with the burden lawsuits have placed on our medical system — from doctors having to practice defensive medicine to cover themselves, to expensive, hard-to-obtain medical malpractice insurance that has driven doctors away from the metro-east.
ISMIE, the state’s main medical malpractice provider, said recently that all the focus on the medical malpractice crisis has made people start to realize that someone has to pay for the costs of our litigious society, and that someone is them.

Comments

Anonymous
I wonder when Kevin will think his readers are smart enough to back up his claims with facts? The ones that exist, like the fact that doctors typically win at trial, or that awards in med mal cases are primarily for medical bills?
Where are all these unjustified “jackpot” med mal verdicts? I wonder how many paraplegics Kevin would trade places with to have their “jackpot”?
But then when have facts ever been a part of lobbying?
Anonymous
“like the fact that doctors typically win at trial”
Shows me that most have no basis to begin with — have been weeded out before trial.
“or that awards in med mal cases are primarily for medical bills?”
Don’t forget the 30-40% that goes to the lawyer.
“I wonder how many paraplegics Kevin would trade places with to have their “jackpot”?
Very very stupid statement meant to detract from any meaningful discussion on the topic. Where are the facts to support the claim that Kevin or any other doctor are making paraplegics?
C’mon CJD I know you can do much better
Matthew
And there lies the problem: he can’t. That same post has been made almost verbatim on this site many times, and it’s just as silly and irrelevant now as it was the first time. It’s not worth my time to repost examples of jackpot awards, but they’re easy to find, as anon 1 is surely aware if he’s followed the topic at all from either side of the debate. It’s just tiresome. But the beauty of it is, the more that trial lawyers and their allies say things that are blatantly misleading, the more people will come around to the truth. It just takes a while. So, after all is said and done, thanks for the post, anon 1. You’re doing your part to help the good guys, although you probably weren’t intending that.
But it is good to see that even in Madison County, it’s not an autowin for the plaintiffs’ bar.
Anonymous
“Very very stupid statement meant to detract from any meaningful discussion on the topic. Where are the facts to support the claim that Kevin or any other doctor are making paraplegics?”
It is the obvious retort to the idiotic claim of “jackpot” awards. Even the tiniest bit of analysis shows that large awards are based on large medical bills.
“Shows me that most have no basis to begin with — have been weeded out before trial.”
There is a loser in every trial – does that mean they all had no basis? Think a little.
“not worth my time to repost examples of jackpot awards, but they’re easy to find, as anon 1 is surely aware if he’s followed the topic at all from either side of the debate. “
It’s not worth your time, because you can’t do it. Why waste your time trying to find something that doesn’t exist? “Jackpot” implies a win of something that you didn’t earn or deserve. If that’s the case, you’d gladly trade places with these “winners” since it would have no cost to you. But I’ve yet to see you find one where you would. So again, show me the injuries which justify the multimillion dollar awards that you would trade places with the victim to get the money?
And of course, let’s not forget that it is rare that the award is actually what is paid. But you guys knew that – right?
I am glad that you feel like a “good guy”. Those who would arbitrarily cap the damages of people who don’t work for a living – children, elderly, stay at home moms – must have a difficult time feeling like “good guys”. You’ve managed to overcome, thankfully!
By the way, how many cases have you tried in Madison County that you know that it’s usually an “autowin” for the plaintiff? Surely you wouldn’t have formed your opinion without all the facts, would you?
Perish the thought!
Anonymous
John Edwards: channelling CP babies
Anonymous
Based on your review of the records, did malpractice occur in that case?
Criminallopath
And what chance would JE have of channeling roadkill much less a dead baby if the judiciary actually applies the rules of evidence to clinicians… zero. Yet, logical fallacies parade through the courtroom under the guise of “expert” clinical testimony secondary to the greed and arrogance of the clinicians.
Anonymous
I can’t wait until we have universal healthcare so the world’s whiniest and most overpaid profession can unionize and speak with one voice.
Anonymous
Interesting arguments all. But the arguments that the “facts” don’t support jackpot awards, etc, are really irrelevant. The economists should know that consumers (of all sorts) do not make their economic decisions based on facts that are thouroughly vetted, but on their own opinion, sentiment, and understanding, be it right or wrong.
Physicians are no different. If physicians generally feel (for whatever reason) that they must practice defensively, or juries “feel” that making a particular award is going to affect them adversely, then they will act accordingly.
(Here come the arguments that doctors should know better. So should the lawyers.)
Robert Strasner
I know this has probably been thought of and discussed, but what about a medical practice that treats individuals who sign a legal waiver to litigation? The consumer could get his treatment at a reduced rate and the practitioner would have less med mal insurance expense.
Robert Strasner
Anonymous
The law typically does not allow you to waive negligence.
Anonymous
The law does allow you to waive the right to litigate, which has become a feature of most commercial transactions memorialized in binding arbitration clauses.
Anonymous
Waiving liability for negligence and waiving the right to file a lawsuit are two different things.
I imagine most would agree to arbitration. It’s a bad idea though. Are physicians happy to waive the right to file suit and take their cases to a jury in their contracts with medical product providers and health insurers?
Anonymous
You have to admire how arrogant Kevin is to assume that juries who decide against doctors are stupid.
Matthew
You have to admire the brazen ignorance of the original post in the last anon comment. The post didn’t speak to the decision on liability at all, only the arbitrary and capricious awards that are based on emotion, sympathy and theatrical lawyering. How does the abbreviation go? RTFP?
Anonymous
>>”Waiving liability for negligence and waiving the right to file a lawsuit are two different things”
True, which is why there are “hold harmless and indemnify” clauses.
Anonymous
Hold harmless and indemnification clauses typically shift the burden of defending a claim between two parties that could both potentially be liable to a third party.
Anonymous
“The post didn’t speak to the decision on liability at all, only the arbitrary and capricious awards that are based on emotion, sympathy and theatrical lawyering. “
Thanks for unwittingly illustrating the point, Matthew!
By the way, can you point us to those awards which were “arbitrary and capricious” based on your review of the records?
I can already here the crickets!
Anonymous
“hear” the crickets. My mistake.
Anonymous
That’s because it is Friday night…

Are juries getting smarter?

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

Related Stories

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels