Pain And Suffering

Yes. "Pain and suffering" is too subjective for juries to determine how much should be awarded. A limit will also help alleviate some of the high cost of medical care in this country. Jury awards varies too much not related to the actual pain and suffering of the patient, but how well the attorney presents his/her case. c.i.

It is very subjective.

I had to pay healthcare out of pocket for 4 months and it is expensive and its only going to get more expensive.

Unfortunately by putting a cap on awards, you effect both the people that actually deserve an award and the folks that sue because they can.

Absolutely. I think that the lawyers have gone "hog wild" in the last few years, when it comes to wringing large settlements out of juries. As a result, the malpractice rates have gone sky high.The result is, many doctors are cutting their practices short, and retiring early.

In my town, there was a big meeting about it. A number of doctors have left the area already, and more are threatening to leave. My own MD sent out a notice that he is committed to stay, but has curtailed some of the improvements he was planning to make in his office.

Yes, cap.

But as long as we have politicians in the pocket of the lawyer lobby, this won't happen.

Considering most politicians are lawyers....yup

No
As being a former world class athlete (Football and Olympics) and having been disabled for 18 months and losing it all, I feel what I lost was priceless.
I'm not bitter anymore but what is justice, who can set the price? What about the innocent? I forgot to mention I was hit head-on in an collision.

I am with you husker two major car accidents, one at age 16 and the second at age 21, with associated PTSD (very painful) and the arthritis that develops from having compound fractures should have been compensated and although I did get a couple of fairly large settlements the only one that made any sense is the one were I was represented by counsel. Dealing with the insurance company claims adjuster's caused as much emotional pain as the accidents themselves did. Perhaps that is why the insurance industry is promoting this issue.

husker and JD, How much would have compensated you for your "pain and suffering?" c.i.

in 1980 after the lawyer $8,000 - nutt'n looking back

In the 62 accident I received only $5,500.00 without representation. In the 67 accident I received over $6,000.00 with a lawyer. The pain and suffering well it is hard to measure but I am about to enter a program called EMDR for the PTSD and over the years I have suffered from chronic acute panic attacks and it's evil twin depression. I would say I have lost more than half my life. I was unable to fly for over 20 years because of the phobias that develop and had to pay to be desensitized. The arthritis is getting pretty tough, I am 56 and pay over a $100.00 co-pay in medicine per month and $120.00 in health insurance, you know federal employees pay half of their health insurance costs.

I was a passenger in both accidents and drinking was not a factor. One driver ran a stop sign and a truck hit us and I was thrown from the car, no seat belts in those days. In the other accident it was speed and driver error.

Oh ya my annuity is taxed, the money I paid into the CSR was of course taxed when I earned it and I have not heard a word about reducing that kind of double taxation.

JD, From my personal point of view, your settlements in both accidents were too small. That's what I mean about "subjective" determinants for pain and suffering. It's my personal opinion that your lawyer did not do a good job, because he should have watched out for your interests - knowing you required medical and/or psychological treatments - the amounts of settlement should have reflected those costs. Insurance companies will try to settle claims at the lowest possible cost, and offer amounts up front to settle claims that may involve years of medical treatment. Once you sign on the dotted line, those rights are lost. When our son was a passenger in a car in college, the driver drove off a cliff, and the car went down about 25 feet. The car was totaled, and our son and the driver were both lucky by getting out alive. My son had a broken arm, and had sutures done on his face. We went to see an attorney, but my son wanted to settle for the maximum they offered at that time, $25,000, the limit on the driver's insurance. c.i.

$6,000.00 was a lot of money in 1967 and I was in Arizona not California. And remember that money was not taxed and is what I got after he took 1/3. The worst part of the 1967 deal was that I was not 21 yet, only 20 so my husband was Trustee of the money. We used it to buy a house in Phoenix and when we got divorced he got half. Poor me, ooohhh poor me

JD, That was a lot of money in 1967. That's how much I earned, and paid over $500 in income taxes. c.i.

In some cases, the plaintiff may be severly injured. For example, if a baby is born with multiple preventable injuries due to negligence of the MD attending the birth, that child might require around the clock nursing care for the rest of his life.

How much should an award be to cover the expenses of this individual for about 75 years? Would you think at least 25 million $$?

New Haven, How many babies are born with those kinds of disability based on a doctors malpractice? We must look at the BIG picture. c.i.

How often?

Too frequently as far as the poor parents are concerned.

We may not hear much about malpractice tort reform coming out of Bush's mouth for some time. That's because of the major media coverage given yesterday to Linda McDougal. Ms. McDougal is the woman who was mistakenly given a double mastectomy after being misdiagnosed with cancer.

When sob stories like hers hit the air, austere caps on jury awards just sound cruel.

Without a payoff from John Edwards, McDougal drove the point home on the NBC Nightly News, calling out to Bush:

"Don't penalize the patients. Don't penalize the victims."

And her lawyer stuck it to Bush as well, on CNN:

"President Bush intends to add additional harm to Linda and other victims. I mean, 98,000 people per year die of medical malpractice, not to mention the hundreds of thousands that are injured. And the president wants to tell them, I don't care what you've been through, we're going to put a cap on your damages of $250,000."

There are points that Bush can push back with to obscure the issue -- that the main cap is only on 'pain and suffering' damages, that economic damages are not capped in his plan, and that punitive damages can be double economic damages. But those points ignore that economic damages just pay back the cash that you have already lost. It's the 'pain and suffering' damages that can help victims, who have had their lives brutally altered, move forward with some dignity.

Nevertheless, it's the sob stories that put a human face on the issue.

Bush can parry with all talking points he wants, but he's still facing someone who suffered a mistaken double mastectomy. That's why he's likely to lay low on the issue for the near future.

But the risk for him is, the next time he forces the issue, another sob story can easily bubble up to the surface.

Especially now that the media is probably on the lookout for them.

And maybe John Edwards' staff too.

I looked at a file today at work - someone drove into the back of a parked truck - the driver of the moving vehicle wasn't wearing the glasses they are required to wear, by law - the driver was speeding, out of their lane. what happened in court? the driver of the parked truck was found 1% liable - which means the driver who rear-ended the truck will be getting a biiiiiig settlement. it's frightening what some u.s. juries come up with.

Was the truck parked in the right of way? Otherwise it seems totally unfair to have the driver of a parked vehicle liable for anything.