” it’s evidenced by the fact that she outright chose money over truth.”

Please explain how the court could award her “the truth”. In your exhaustive review of the Rules of Civil Procedure and the statutes, tell me how she was going to get awarded “the truth” by any court.

“Health courts as a concept don’t “include” damage caps or anything else. There may be a specific proposal that you’ve looked at that includes both, but your attempt to linke them was pretty sad.”

Again, read the Common Good proposal, which is the only “health court” with much wide backing or is even close to being a legislative proposal. When you do, come back and explain how they don’t include damage caps. Until then, pipe down on the subject, you’re really embarrasing yourself.

“They can go through a full trial, hear what everyone has to say, and hear what the jury verdict is.”

So your solution is for this woman to pay out of her pocket her attorney’s hourly rate, all the experts, and all the costs of exhibits, and then hear the finding of negligence, and dismiss the case before damages are awarded? I guess, in theory, you’re right – that could happen. You’ve really got me there!

” I was simply pointing out that Kevin left out arguments on both sides of the aisle.”

Perhaps you were, there. But you’ve since spiraled out of control and way past the depth of your knowledge.

The fact that she was more interested in money than truth is not an assumption, it’s evidenced by the fact that she outright chose money over truth. Again, it’s understandable, but to call that nothing more than an assumption reveals a lack of even the most basic understanding of the article and the discussion at hand.

You tried to steer it back to damage caps, but we’re not going there. Still not relevant to the article, post or discussion. I’m sorry you don’t have anything else of value to contribute.

Health courts as a concept don’t “include” damage caps or anything else. There may be a specific proposal that you’ve looked at that includes both, but your attempt to linke them was pretty sad.

And no, cash isn’t the only thing they can get. They can go through a full trial, hear what everyone has to say, and hear what the jury verdict is. Sacrificing those things to assure financial retribution against an accused and unconvicted party is understandable, but it’s not the only option.

If you’d go back and reread my post (or maybe for the first time, I’m not sure), I was simply pointing out that Kevin left out arguments on both sides of the aisle. Your first post was silly, my post demonstrated that, and the point still stands.

And no, attorneys don’t directly control what journalists write, but they influence it. Just ask Mike Nifong about the accusations leveled against him for inappropriately trying to influence the jury pool for his case with bad press releases. I’m sure he’ll tell you all about it, since you clearly haven’t done much thinking on the topic.

This is my last one on this thread. I hope you learned at least a little something in the process that will help get the mud out of your thinking.

Good luck!

Actually, Matthew, you said “He also “forgot” the part about how the parents lawsuit being about the truth transformed into, at the end, being about the money.” Again, this remains false, because from the very beginning of the claim, it is a request for money. Read your own posts.

” That’s what plaintiffs and their attorneys attempt to distract juries and reporters from.”

Again, no, it’s not. Money is talked about from opening statements through closing. The costs are the key. Reporters have access to the whole thing, including the pleadings. The plaintiffs and their attorneys and the defense and their attorneys don’t control what journalists write, though.

” when in fact, most plaintiffs are more than happy to settle for cash, regardless of what information they actually gain from the process.”

They don’t have a choice. Cash is the only thing they can get. Most can’t afford to hire an attorney and the experts necessary just to get them an explanation pre-trial.

” the plaintiff was, in fact, more interested in money than truth,”

That is nothing more than an assumption on your part.

“I suppose if you really wanted to move the discussion on in a meaningful and relevant way, maybe you could debate the merits of health courts or something like that, but damage caps have no bearing on this article, this case, or this thread.”

Health courts, in their most common incarnation as promoted by Common Good, do include damage caps. We can talk theory if you want, but as far as legislation goes, damage caps are what is on the table, whether you like it or not.

Seriously, educate yourself on this process before you go pontificating about its ills. You clearly lack even the most basic understanding of how a medical malpractice case works and what is involved.

No one ever said that plaintiffs weren’t asking for money, or that they were trying to hide the request from anyone. The point is that often the money is the most important thing, and the truth is not nearly so important. That’s what plaintiffs and their attorneys attempt to distract juries and reporters from. Plain and simple. It makes sense, it’s good strategy, but it’s dishonest and misleading. The phrase “it’s not about the money” is meant to make it seem like truth is more important than financial damages, when in fact, most plaintiffs are more than happy to settle for cash, regardless of what information they actually gain from the process. You haven’t addressed, much less refuted, any of that, so I’ll just assume we agree and move on. I’m not going to address the other arguments that you’ve moved to that aren’t on point.

The bottom line is this: the plaintiff was, in fact, more interested in money than truth, and despite the fact that (at least according to the article) the plaintiff was probably losing the trial and no credible evidence of real malpractice was presented (again, no, I was no more in the courtroom than you were, but we’re going by the information available), she still got paid.

I suppose if you really wanted to move the discussion on in a meaningful and relevant way, maybe you could debate the merits of health courts or something like that, but damage caps have no bearing on this article, this case, or this thread. Do you really not have the ability to see that, or did you only prepare one line of argument that you’re going to force into whatever discussion comes up?

The only thing “ubiquitous” is the request for money damages. It’s in EVERY one. I’m sure you’ve read many civil complaints, so you know this.

They “rarely admit” it? How do you figure? They ask for it in opening statements, they talk about costs with witnesses, and they ask for it in closing statements. It’s all public record. Again, I’m sure you’ve watched many civil trials, so you know this as well.

Why are you trying to pretend you’re ignorant when you’re obviously an expert on civil trials? At least, I assume you are given the amount of criticism you have.

Like it or not, when you’re talking “reform”, you’re talking damage caps. I’ve yet to see a reform package hit a legislature that didn’t include them – I’d bet they are in 90% of all of them.

And damage caps exist to protect insurance profits. And they fall hardest on those who don’t work – ie. children, stay at home moms, and the elderly. That’s a fact, whether you like it or not.

“It was about getting the answers that I needed,” she says. “I needed to know why this happened to my son.”

Or, just go back and look through god knows how many articles about any number of civil suits and look for the phrase “not about the money”. It’s ubiquitous.

Understand, I don’t blame the plaintiff at all for taking the settlement in lieu of getting a real answer about what happened to her son, it’s completely understandable. The point was that plaintiffs and their attorneys rarely admit that the money is the most important thing, and the truth is secondary. The fact that the money is the most important thing doesn’t speak to the integrity of the lawsuit on either side, but that’s not really the issue. Your denial of this is silly, but then, that’s never stopped you before.

I’m going to get us back on point, there was an anon 6:32 am comment that I was responding to, not sure if it was you or not, but we’re not talking about damage caps at the moment. That commenter characterized the issue as the evil insureres versus the innocent victims that deserve their money. That was what I objected to and recharacterized in a more accurate and meaningful light. Changing the subject doesn’t alter the inaccuracy and lack of integrity displayed in the post I was responding to.

Actually, Matthew, I completely agree with you on that topic, and despite your selective ignorance, have said so repeatedly. I only think cases where negligence has been proven should result in a damage award.

But damage caps, which is what 90% of all tort reform proposals are, do not address that issue. They simply arbitrarily cap the damages of an individual regardless of responsibility of the defendant, for the sole benefit of the doctor’s liability carrier.

” To admit openly that the suit is about the money is to admit far too much that juries would not want to hear from a theoretically sympathetic plaintiff. “

Here’s where you expose your ignorance of the process. From day one, it’s admitted openly. The suit asks for money damages, and that’s it. It doesn’t request an apology or an explanation because it cannot – the court cannot award that relief. So for you to say they are not “open” about it reflects a fundamental lack of knowledge of a civil suit.

And that certainly doesn’t say good things about your ability to make criticisms when you have such a meager understanding of the thing you’re criticizing.

You have hit the nail on the head and have met CJD, the master of mischaracterization, who now just remains anonymous.

The question isn’t one of trading the suffering of children for insurance profits (although I don’t blame you for mischaracterizing the issue that way, you don’t really have a whole lot else to go on), the question is one of why parties that haven’t been proven to be responsible for a bad outcome should be held financially liable for it. And, unsurprisingly, you haven’t had much to say on that topic, and I don’t expect that you will.

You ask, “why not be honest about it”, and the answer is quite clear. Most attorneys and plaintiffs at any point in the litigation promise will absolutely not be honest about it. To admit openly that the suit is about the money is to admit far too much that juries would not want to hear from a theoretically sympathetic plaintiff. The fact that so much dishonesty is necessary for the plaintiff’s lawyer to profit says a great deal about the system and the people sometimes responsible for lawsuits. And it doesn’t say good things.