Friday, March 07, 200816
Health courts help the plaintiffs?
Michael Lyon: "I've tried to verdict over 200 medical malpractice jury trials and won over 90 percent of them. It's my opinion that if the same cases had been tried before health courts, the number of plaintiff's verdicts would have been much higher."
Comments
6:46 PM
If plaintiffs win more because more knowledgable arbitors are delivering more just findings, then that is a good thing. Justice has a very high value. We will then have to take another tack to control malpractice insurance. I would be in favor of restoring some real self-regulation by the medical profession for starters.
7:06 PM
Because with health courts they become superfluous to the process, the patients realize that they don't need them anymore, and they don't get paid. If you have ever been involved in a case with "admitted liability" you get to see the lawyer desperately trying to prove to his client that he really needs to be there, and he needs to collect forty percent of the settlement.
8:38 PM
No jackpot. A larger number of smaller plaintiff judgments, but no jackpot for John Edwards.
You don't think the trial bar cared about the patients do you?
8:56 PM
I was injured in a mva with admitted liability by the other party. My lawyer is necessary to negotiate with the other person's insurance co, but I am paying him by the hour.
7:00 AM
Why would the patient not need them anymore? Do you really think they're going to be able to gather, present and argue the evidence in a setting they have literally no experience in and answer questions or even put their own expert on? And that's assuming the negligence of the physician hasn't left them with severe physical injuries.
9:14 AM
They certainly care more than the negligent physicians who will not willingly pay for the harm they cause.
9:15 AM
Other arguments against the bone headed AMA's advocacy of the health court, here:
http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-with-health-court-proposal.html
And a better remedy for the 75% of cases that are weak and frivolous, torts. Sue the other lawyer for legal malpractice.
http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2007/10/solution-to-medmal-crisis-torts.html
New laws would have to pass to enable this remedy, now impossible, due to the self-dealt immunity from the pals of the land pirates sitting on the bench.
11:31 AM
Especially when they didn't cause the harm, but the trial bar makes up new tort theories.
Channeled any babies lately?
2:55 AM
Malpractice is not a new tort theory, it's older than the Republic. Where'd you get your law degree?
11:15 AM
Examples of made up legal theories?
1) Thin Skull doctrine. Just made up. "It seemed fair," the land pirate who made it up argued.
2) The contingency fee. Invented as a collection method, not to increase access to the court.
3) Higher risk doctrine. You do not have a cancer. You plunder clinical care because you have an unmeasurable, unseen, non-existent higher chance of cancer.
4) 21 day takes backsies in Rule 11. You filed a frivolous lawsuit? The judge wants to sanction you with double the legal and court costs for your idiocy? No. You have 21 days to take it all back. Just made up by the lawyer.
5) The lawyer has 100's of case law and statutory duties to the other side. He has violated many. Can the judge punish him for breaking the law? No. He has a litigation privilege. The lawyer just made it up.
6) The Establishment Clause forbids supernatural hogwash in the law. So what is at the core of duty in torts? The ability to forecast a rare accident. Future forecasting violates the Establishment Clause. Can anyone move it out of torts? No. A judge just made it up.
12:56 PM
12:57 PM
I hope that's not how you got your medical degree. Actually, I hope you don't have a license to practice medicine as your ability to reach conclusions based on any facts is highly suspect.
2:14 PM
Your opinion would be laughable if it hadn't been for one of your brethran who really did win a multi-million dollar case by "speaking" for a fetus. Personally, I hope your aren't a lawyer as you don't know the evidence supporting (or rather not supporting) hypoxic birth injury in clearly the vast majority of CP children, and more importantly medicine/science's inability to distinguish those CP children that MAY have hypoxic injury as a factor from the other CP children. But then again you aren't particularly interested in the truth are you CJD.
9:53 PM
What's that, you haven't? You've once again reached an opinion without a single fact?
Stunning. I guess if all your opinions are this uninformed you've at least got consistency on your side.
3:37 PM
I don't care what some slimeball who gets paid for his testimony has to say. What is stunning is that you can trust an opinion that is bought and paid for. Do you even know what bias is? Review the peer reviewed evidence and show me one test that can distinguish CP caused by hypoxic injury related to birth injury from those that aren't.
4:47 PM
Post a Comment