Comments on: You’ve Heard of the Six Million Dollar Man?

By: Latest » Runaway Jury Watch

Latest » Runaway Jury Watch — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 19:03:51 +0000

[...] Whitecoat)Bronx Jury Awards 60 Million Dollars to Woman in Medical Malpractice Case Alison Hugh went to Dr. [...]

By: Rebecca

Rebecca — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 21:41:24 +0000

Well this is about the worst thing I’ve ever read.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:57:42 +0000

Good idea. Let’s make people who are already poor, and now can’t work because they’re injured, pay out of pocket the tens of thousands it takes to pursue a med mal claim. We don’t want them to be able to contract freely with their attorney like the insurers can. That’s why we only cap the fees of the plaintiff not the defense. Given how much physicians hate the government dictating their payment terns why are they so eager to do it to others?

Because it’s all about helping patients, isn’t it?

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 12:52:40 +0000

ERP so you feel your particular industry should judge itself but no other should? Because of course jurors are stupid and you aren’t. Like I said that’s great. Every industry deserves that same protection.

And I didn’t figure you had any hard statistics. I think you’re right. We should amend the Constitution because of some stories you heard.

By: ERP

ERP — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:48:50 +0000

Oh, also, one other thing. Lawyers have to no longer be allowed to work on contingency. Plaintiff’s should be responsive for their pay (or a portion of their pay) no matter the outcome. If they lose, the plaintiff should have to pay the court’s costs (or some percent of it based on their income and net worth). It goes without saying the lawyer should not receive a portion of the plaintiff’s awards. They should be paid an hourly wage like most everyone else. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think something like this already happens in parts of Europe.

By: ERP

ERP — Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:27:18 +0000

Matt, I feel that cases of medical malpractise SPECIFICALLY should have government employed experts (not all of which would be MD’s by the way) who would do a 2-3 year term during which time then cannot accept payment for any other medical services (ie can’t be on a lawyer’s or pharma company’s pay roll for any reason) during their tenure. They would have to be paid well to do this obviously since this would impede other sources of income. They would decide cases with a Judge presiding obviously. There is simply no way an average lay jury has enough knowledge and education to decide the outcome of a malpractise case, period (unless MD’s were allowed on them! Just try and get an MD past the plaintiff’s attorney!). I have testified several times as a material witness (and as an UNPAID “expert”)and I can say the jury did not even understand what the word “trauma” meant. Too much is at stake and there are so many of these cases, it would be cost effective and more efficient to take these cases out of lay juries’ hands. I am also willing to believe that in other cases where high levels of technical knowledge applies (perhaps even with insurance firms), lay juries just don’t get it enough to make fair decisions. They should stick with criminal court.

Although I do not know the exact stats, I do have close personal knowledge of the Bronx and many medical malpractise cases there so I will leave it at that. I also know that the unabashed scumbag (and rich) law firm Fitzgerald and Fitzgerald (complete with its nauseating “we fight for injured kids” and the fighting Irish logo) finds the Bronx it’s favourite playground. There is a reason the malpractise insurance there for OB’s is through the roof.

By: dirk

dirk — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 20:11:13 +0000

Fine. And where is the part about a workers comp type system??? It is not there, you have never heard it, you are just making up that conclusion.

He is a trial lawyer puppet and wants to bring down costs on the backs of providers (and hard working tax payers) with providers still taking all the risks.

By: Supremacy Claus

Supremacy Claus — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:03:01 +0000

We will now have the Bronx attitude sitting on the Supreme Court. That will be a national tragedy and catastrophe.

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:40:49 +0000

Also, the health insurance companies have decided that they don’t want “clueless” juries deciding all those class actions that physicians have filed against them for failing to reimburse. The only “fair” way is to have the jury made up of insurance adjusters.

I take it you’re ready to amend the Constitution to achieve this? After all, wouldn’t want a “clueless” jury deciding you were owed money, would we?

By: Matt

Matt — Fri, 17 Jul 2009 18:38:50 +0000

You’re right. We should make policy decisions based on one jury verdict. Or even 100. Out of the millions of cases heard by jurors. Clearly an overhaul is needed.

But wait, how do you know the jury was “clueless”? Did you read the record and determine that the care was not negligent? Or are you just channeling the case a la Bill Frist?

Since you know how bad the Bronx is, perhaps you can point us to the ratio of plaintiff v. defense verdicts in malpractice cases there.