Pain And Suffering

Piffka, there was really no sensible reason for finding the driver of the parked truck at fault for anything other than the fact that the at-fault driver had no insurance and would have had no recourse to any money from anyone if the truck driver hadn't been found 1% at fault. It's the joy and risk of going with a jury trial.

There is much anecdotal evidence about outrageous liability awards, but does anyone know the percentage of insurance premiums (including earnings), that actually go to victims (and their lawyers)?

If you look at most p&c carriers in Ontario right now, more money is going out on claims, including settlements, than is brought in through premiums. That is why several carriers have left the industry - either through bankruptcy or the government shutting them down. There are very few p&c carriers that have a loss ratio of less than 110 here. We were, as an industry, hopeful of provincial government take over, but the government realized they couldn't afford to subsidize the settlements that are getting higher and higher.

Interestingly, in the provinces where auto insurance has become government run, they have put very tight caps on benefits.

When considering pain and suffering, one must also mention the cost of meds, needed by the infirmed, long term patient. A case in point is the treatment for Fabre's disease. The estimated cost to medicate the patient is about $12,000/month.

For life!

Distribution of awards is usually:
1/3 to lawyer
2/3 to client

New Haven - pain and suffering awards are not for the actual treatment of illness or injury. That is a separate part of the cost of the claim, or the settlement. Pain and suffering is not part of a claim for illness. It is related only to injury or damage claims.

PAIN & SUFFERING
hi everybody! read your comments. of course, victims need "adequate & fair" compensation. but i think "riskreduction" is a subject not to be overlooked: for the med prof that means strict licensing, peer review.. .. for the patient it means understanding the risk of procedures and operations. as an example, our local hospital encourages/requires prospective prostate cancer patients to view a video presentation outlining the risk of the operation and the various aftereffects - which can be substantial. for drivers i think stricter licensing and regular retesting might help improve drivers competence - and reduce accidents. hamburger(have to admit that i made my money working for an insurance company - mainly life insurance)

Many states have a $250, 000 cap on pain and suffering.

Should victims get enough money to cover lost salary and diminution of future earnings?

Of course.

Should victims get enough to cover all medical expenses-past and future involved with the accident?

Of course,

Should lawyers, like the ambulance chasing John Edwards be limited to asking a maximum of $250,000 for pain and suffering?

Of course, since as has been mentioned, the lawyer sharks get at least one third of the settlement.

If this nation is serious about lowering medical costs and the cost of medical insurance, caps must be put on pain and suffering in all states.

It is evident that Doctors now overprescribe many tests, unnecessary and sometimes painful, in order to make certain they cover all of the myriad possibilities.

The rapacious lawyer is by now a staple of our culture. It is time he or she is brought up short.

Two provinces in Canada have put $2500 caps on pain and suffering settlements. It's having a fascinating effect on many sides of the industry. We had a seminar with a defense lawyer who said that, in one city, about half of the insurance plaintiff lawyers had (since August of last year) switched to matrimonial work.

We've got doctors dropping out of certain specialisations in droves. If it's going to affect people's ability to even find a doctor, then something has got to be done.

As an RN, I can tell you of cases that were completely unjustified, for sympathy. We all desire medical care, in our country's future to be the best science has to offer. If people continue to sue over poor outcome and the fact that we were not designed to live forever, this sort of thing has to stop.

I do not condone any breach in medical practice. Those who do not conform to medical standards should be sued, which keeps the standard high, of medical care.

I do feel this is abused. I work in the medical profession. Doctors and medical facilities pay lawyers tons of cash on behalf of people who do not deserve it. They also pay insurance, which is unaffordable, because any idiot can sue. This downgrades everyone's medical care and I see it every day.

Who ever thought we were supposed to live forever? We can't, but that doesn't ever stop a greedy family from suing. These cases are settled out of court, so no one sees this, damaging the reputation of the doctor and hospital. I have seen enough greed pay offs, which I consider extortion. Do you really expect an 88 year old man to keep going? No reasonable person does, but families do and often do sue for millions of dollars and get it, for a natural death, believe it or not. We were not designed to live forever, so greedy people nit pick an sue for unimaginable sums of money, out of sheer greed and abuse of the legal system allowing them to do so.

Put these grieving families in front of a jury, they win every time. They don't win their multi-million dollar cases from evidence, they get it because everyone feels sorry for their loss, which is inevitable. We were not intended to live forever. When people die, it is not necessarily a health care workers fault.

People have this mistaken belief that doctors are so wealthy. In reality, do most people understand that it takes about a straight A average to even be considered for medical school? Then there is the issue of selective admission. No matter how fantastic your grades are, you write a lengthy paper, as to why you want to be a doctor. You have to pester about three past professors to write a letter of recommendation. You have to pass the med school test, before even entering.

Does anyone know how much work it takes to make the grade for med school or how much it costs? It is extremely expensive. Many owe so much money in student loans, they are going to take forever to get out from under it.

I used to hate doctors. I would get a bill that put me in debt, for about 15 minutes of their time. I was outraged. I understand it now. These doctors of today aren't quite as wealthy as you would think. In fact, as an RN, I say they are underpaid for today's pressure of patient demand and lawsuit potential. I would honestly advise anyone wishing to be a doctor to take their skills elsewhere. I have seen what they go through and their pay isn't worth it.

I hope that I am not speaking to the wrong people, but a RN is under the same legal scrutiny as a doctor. I don't want to be sued! The only reason RNs are avoided is the fact that people want deep pockets, a doctor.

If you want poor medical care, keep suing doctors, because things just didn't turn out right. In all good, sue anyone who is wronging or neglecting patients. This is a very rare situation and I know it.

The next time you or your family is hospitalized or put in a nursing facility, don't complain because your call light wasn't immediately answered. Our staff was cut in half to pay for lawsuits of nothing more than poor outcome and greed. Those of us still in the profession, we do what we can. We actually do know our patients and take action to prevent problems.

Cut the lawsuits now, greedy people. We are all paying for it. No one wants to be a doctor or nurse anymore, because of your lawyers. I even had a debate with several nurses, when completely understaffed. What is more important, charting or patient care. I was outnumbered. I said charting. This is exactly what lawyers go after. No matter what you do, if it isn't charted, it was not done. Several other nurses felt patient care was more important and skipped charting, when understaffed. I asked them how on earth they could prove what they did that shift. It would appear, with no charting, nothing. Not me! I will chart the fact that I did not do a dressing change. I will chart assessments. I will write anything that I have done. At least a lawyer can't eat me alive.

People have to stop being so greedy. People have to accept human death as nature intended. People have to stop suing over grief. People should sue over malpractice.

A cap necessary for pain and suffering, absolutely! These are greed people wish to have a financial pity party. I have seen enough greed! It is time for people to act human and not expect others, of differing professions to be God's.

Cap the pain and suffering and tell them to go home and have a big pity party for themselves and invite everyone they know.

Good question!

There have been plenty of opinions, but few facts posted here.

Jury award amounts (not negotiated settlements) can be found in sets of books called jury verdict reporters. Anyone can have access to the reports, both as volumes and on-line, but they are expensive. For obvious reasons, settlement amounts are closely tied to expected jury award amounts. To know one is to know the other, consequently lawyers know how much cases are likely to be worth before the case even begins. I can't afford to subscribe to the reports, so the best I can do is look for whatever free info is out there.

Below are some facts gleaned from a California study followed by a link to the study itself in .pdf format. The report relied on jury verdict reporters for much of its information.

Of all the medical malpractice cases brought in the country only 30% are successful and result in a verdict for the plaintiff (patient). Therefore, 70% of the time the medical provider (doctor, hospital, insurance company) wins the case.

If you take the total of all damages awarded in all the medical malpractice cases in the study you will find that the proportion of non-economic damages (pain and suffering, loss of consortium, etc.) is 31% of the total that the defendants (probably insurance companies) paid. That means that 69% of the total awards were NOT for pain and suffering or other forms of non-economic damage, but instead were for actual economic damage suffered (such as loss of income or for medical expenses).

Its the 31% that the insurance companies are whinning about. For them its not whether or not an individual deserves this or that much of an award. Its more about reducing the 31%. They, like the gambling enterprises that they resemble, are just looking to stack the odds in the "house's" favor. It matters little to them about individual awards as long as they come out a winner at the end of the day. Similarly, it matters little to a gambling casino if an individual gambler has a good night as long as the odds are in the house's favor they will do well, in the end, against all the gamblers that night (or that week, or that month).

If you think insurance companies are not institutions of legalized gambling consider this:
When an insurance company sells you life insurance it is betting that you will live for a long time; you are betting that you will die soon. They make their money by spreading their risk over large numbers of policies. Additionally, they employ actuaries to study mortality rates among populations: they know the odds of X number of people dying in the next Y number of years. The rules are skewered toward the "house" in that the amount of the bet and the amount of the payoff are controlled. This is simplely stated but basically correct. The same sort of calculations are made when it comes to car insurance or health insurance.

Gambling casinos, similarly, spread their risk over large numbers. They skewer the rules in their own favor. At a blackjack table the dealer must take an additional card at 16 and must not do so at 17. Their are multiple decks of cards in the dealing shoe which are shuffled together. Similar amounts of bets are grouped together at one table. All of this militates against the player and for the house. Over time the house will always win, except if someone, or group, is able to count the cards.

Card counting is a method by which a player can keep track of how many of which type of cards (high or low) are left in the deck. With that knowledge the player can increase or decrease his/her bet and even the odds with the house. Card counting is not illegal nor is it cheating. The casino will ban any player it suspects of card counting, nonetheless. It will refuse to play on an even playing field.

Health insurers have their equivlents to card counters. They are plaintiff personal injury lawyers. The lawyers put an unknown factor into the insurer's calculus. That factor is non-economic damages, one of which is Pain and Suffering. The insurers know approximately what their economic damages liability will be, because, through their actuaries (odds makers?), they know the present and future earnings of the population. The unknown non-economic factor is what these multi-billion dollar companies are asking us to relieve them from through legislative enactment.

At first they tried to ameliorate their decrease in profits (not losses) by increasing the amounts that the insuree (hospitals and doctors) has to bet (pay in premiums) to obtain the same payoff. That didn't work because the cost was passed on as higher medical bills. This increase in medical bills caused a public outcry. The government came close to putting them out of the medical insurance business (the Clinton health care initiative). Instead of just taking less profits they started, and continue, a hugh public relations campaign.

They blamed it on the lawyers. They had the doctors and hospitals telling us how lawyers, winning big personal injury cases with non-economic damages, was the whole problem. Nevermind that medical providers actually make mistakes that cause economic AND non-economic trauma such as: Loss of income AND disfigurement; loss of future earnings AND a lifetime of pain; and so on. Nevermind that "the house" could simply decrease its winnings (earnings). It is the lawyers' fault.


http://www.mcgeorge.edu/government_law_and_policy/publications/ccglp_pubs_micra_cap_pdf.pdf

http://www.ismie.com/news/rate_release.pdf

Not strictly an answer to nelsonn's question.

I only got through part of your post, John. There is a question you asked that stuck me as relevant way beyond the rest of your post, although I do understand you concerns.

As an RN, I know the facts. Families do not. Everyone in the medical profession does way too much work for lawyers and not enough towards patient care. That is the truth. You, as an individual, with family, are never going to know the full truth, just the nurses and we don't open our mouths fearing lawsuit.

I have seen cases where I strongly feel there should be a lawsuit. We are not staffed. We cannot do what administration demands, but we better cover our butts with paperwork! This isn't right or fair to anyone. There are so many times that I have seen death swept under the rug, when it should never have come to this.

I have also worked in nursing homes, that are trusted by no one, but give better patient care than any hospital ever dreamed of. You have to understand that health care providers get attached to residents. Any individual will quickly lose their job if anything questionable occurs.

A hospital is perceived so differently. They are the pros. Yeah right! I have worked for both, mostly acute care nursing and can tell you that they are the most dangerous and the less questioned.

This really is the best healthcare you can get globally, right here in the US, but it isn't perfect. Nursing homes are getting blasted needlessly while hospitals go unquestioned. I have seen far more death in a hospital, believe it or not. I got so sick of the lies that I got out to a nursing home. The state shut that place down!

I went back to acute care nursing, where I am more experienced and saw the same thing over and over. People will sue for anything. We all die. We do not live forever, but people sue and get a ton of money for bad outcome, not any negligence.

The ones who do not sue are the ones who have no knowledge at all and probably should hold someone accountable. Their family member was not put in the correct environment for care level needed. They are fed a line. It makes me ill.

The fact is, no one really knows the truth besides the nurses that follow doctors orders and work within administration cost demands. No one else does. No lawyer can figure it all out. No family member can, unless a trained health care professional and licensed.

That is the harsh truth. I have yet, in years of nursing, to see a fair lawsuit. That is the truth. The ones who should sue don't because they have no clue what happened. The ones who do sue are after money over poor outcome. It isn't balanced at all.

When nurses that care for the patients speak up, that is the only time the truth will really be known, but we can't do that. We risk our job and nursing license doing so.

I am very sorry to say such a thing when I demand quality of life for all of my patients. I am not always allowed to do what is within my judgment at all because of cost. I do what I can to help people.

If I think someone needs to be in the hospital, I have finally figured out the right words to say to family that will not get me in trouble. I do what I feel is right by people and it isn't easy by any stretch of the imagination. It get things done that I cannot do alone, with family demands! I am doing the right thing by people and know it.

Nurses are overwhelmed with workload. It isn't their fault or the doctors. If you want to blame anyone, start with Medicare and health insurance companies that will not allow cost. Doctors can do nothing about this and have to work within the demands of insurance and hospital administration and do the best they can for anyone and they do.

Point the finger where it belongs, people that know nothing about medicine, just cost.

Pain and Suffering Settlement Limits
No-fault law in New Jersey, originally passed in 1972, has failed to reduce insurance premiums, which remain among the highest in the nation. The 1998 statutory changes are unlikely to bring about rate changes, but the new law will make it harder for some legitimately injured parties to obtain medical care and will likely further limit pain and suffering claims. Insurance companies and their lobbyists appear to have convinced our legislature and a significant portion of the public that it is in our interest to make life more difficult for injured motorists, who now must look to our courts for protection. Presently our system poorly serves many injured claimants while premiums for all remain high. For the same money, we should demand a better product from our lawmakers, which, in the end, may require repeal of the no-fault law.