High costs of insurance, Jury awards to medical malpratice victims

cashmoney · #1 09-04-2003, 02:48 PM

I've been keeping up around the country with how a few state governments are putting a cap on awards given to those who are victims of medical malpractice inorder to retain doctors within certain states.

For those of you who have been following things like me, what do you think about it all? Do you think it's right? The awards that are given to the victims are awards given by jurys, the people themselves. It's the state governments who are wanting to impose these laws, yet those politicians are supposed to be representing the people themselves who are inturn actually the ones awarding the money.

Discuss.

cashmoney · #2 09-04-2003, 03:12 PM

bump

Honeykiss1974 · #3 09-04-2003, 03:13 PM

As a hospital administrator, I can tell you that malpractice insurance is indeed high as heck for physicians, due to million dollar settlements/awards that have been given to victims of malpractice (let the insurance companies tell it

but my gripes with insurance companies PERIOD are for another thread )

Anyway, this situation is really a difficult one. On one hand, how do you attach an amount to pain and suffering, especially if its something that has debilitated the person for the rest of their life? And who makes that decision? In the case of the older man who got castrated instead of ear surgery, I’m sure he thinks that this pain suffering is worth more than what I think it maybe.

I dunno.

My health system has been able to keep physicians because we pay a portion their insurance premiums. But this will only get us so far.

valkyrie · #4 09-04-2003, 03:49 PM

Maybe I'm biased because I'm an attorney, but I don't practice personal injury law so I suppose I'm not that biased.

Anyway, I do not think that there should be limits on how much money a plaintiff can collect in a medical malpractice case. If a jury of ordinay people, after hearing the evidence, decides to award a plaintiff millions of dollars for pain and suffering, I think there shouldn't be a problem with that. I have no idea what it would be like to have a life-changing injury and I believe that people unfortunate enough to experience such a tragedy should get enough money so they never have to worry about money for the rest of their lives -- that's small compensation for a serious injury. Some of the caps I've heard mentioned are downright offensive -- how in the heck does $250,000 come even close to compensating someone for the pain and suffering related to, say, having the wrong leg amputated?

Politicians would only pass such laws because they are being lobbied by insurance companies. I think they are the ones at fault here, but I have to admit that I have a bias and tend to find the people running insurance companies to be evil and greedy. If they were less concerned with making tons of $$$ and more concerned with paying claims, I don't think we'd have so many problems with doctors quitting their jobs because they can't afford the insurance.

juniorgrrl · #5 09-04-2003, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie
Maybe I'm biased because I'm an attorney, but I don't practice personal injury law so I suppose I'm not that biased.

Anyway, I do not think that there should be limits on how much money a plaintiff can collect in a medical malpractice case. If a jury of ordinay people, after hearing the evidence, decides to award a plaintiff millions of dollars for pain and suffering, I think there shouldn't be a problem with that. I have no idea what it would be like to have a life-changing injury and I believe that people unfortunate enough to experience such a tragedy should get enough money so they never have to worry about money for the rest of their lives -- that's small compensation for a serious injury. Some of the caps I've heard mentioned are downright offensive -- how in the heck does $250,000 come even close to compensating someone for the pain and suffering related to, say, having the wrong leg amputated?

Politicians would only pass such laws because they are being lobbied by insurance companies. I think they are the ones at fault here, but I have to admit that I have a bias and tend to find the people running insurance companies to be evil and greedy. If they were less concerned with making tons of $$$ and more concerned with paying claims, I don't think we'd have so many problems with doctors quitting their jobs because they can't afford the insurance.

amen, sister. amen.

DeltAlum · #6 09-04-2003, 05:09 PM

Valkryie,

For the most part, I agree. And insurance companies are among the most conservative investers, and thus the most successful companies around.

However, there is so much inconsistancy between what different juries will award for a stubbed toe, there is some real danger. Members of your profession sometimes don't help by pushing for higher and higher settlements (and, let's be honest, fees for themselves). And, I hope we can agree, some lawsuits should never really be filed. That's not meant to be an indictment of the legal profession as a whole. Only a small part.

Perhaps there should be guidelines for juries rather than a cap.

Then again, as you point out, how do you know what any given injury is worth unless you've experienced it?

It IS a scary thought that lobbiests and legislators are setting the standards.

It is obvious that as the awards keep going up, so will our insurance premiums. Which isn't good.

So, a few people who suffer injuries are compensated well, and the rest of us end up paying for it in higher premiums.

Catch 22.

cashmoney · #7 09-04-2003, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by valkyrie
Maybe I'm biased because I'm an attorney, but I don't practice personal injury law so I suppose I'm not that biased.

Anyway, I do not think that there should be limits on how much money a plaintiff can collect in a medical malpractice case. If a jury of ordinay people, after hearing the evidence, decides to award a plaintiff millions of dollars for pain and suffering, I think there shouldn't be a problem with that. I have no idea what it would be like to have a life-changing injury and I believe that people unfortunate enough to experience such a tragedy should get enough money so they never have to worry about money for the rest of their lives -- that's small compensation for a serious injury. Some of the caps I've heard mentioned are downright offensive -- how in the heck does $250,000 come even close to compensating someone for the pain and suffering related to, say, having the wrong leg amputated?

Politicians would only pass such laws because they are being lobbied by insurance companies. I think they are the ones at fault here, but I have to admit that I have a bias and tend to find the people running insurance companies to be evil and greedy. If they were less concerned with making tons of $$$ and more concerned with paying claims, I don't think we'd have so many problems with doctors quitting their jobs because they can't afford the insurance.

Well said.