Re: Sherm's candidate in trouble, but no one is talking.

by ziggy Thu Jul 31, 2008 10:59 pm

How should those judges define "frivilous suits"?

And what about that pesky Constitution?

Amendment VII:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

by Aaron Thu Jul 31, 2008 11:27 pm

The only thing that has to be done is the elimination of contingency fees and limit the amount a lawyer can make off a case, regardless of the verdict, particularly in a class action suit. Either that or force the losers and their attorneys to pay the winners attorney fee. Or a combination of the two. Put some financial risk upon these lawyers and limit the reward and the frivolous suits will dry up, just as they have in Australia.

by **ohio county** Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:34 am

Sir, it is NOT our system to seek something for nothing. It is a mutation of our system that leads us to believe that nothing is ever our own fault. I really don't care what happens in California but I resent that our doctors are being chased out of state.

Wheeling lost our last neurosurgeon and Dan had the temerity to tell me from over two hundred miles away that he wasn't a good physician because he had been sued before. Unmitigated bullshit. He was sued because he was an easy mark because he'd made an unfortunate choice in his field of practice.

My brother, a family physician, loved delivering babies. He plastered their pcitures up all over the place and followed them with great interest. Despite the fact he'd never had a malpractice suit he was told he was not to deliver babies. An attorney he retained to defend against malpractice sued him ("Sorry. The money's better.") The suit was thrown out long before it ever went to trial since he'd done everything possible. Not a settlement. The suit was thrown out. He's had trouble getting malpractice insurance ever since.

The scum-sucking lawyers can go to hell.

by shermangeneral Fri Aug 01, 2008 7:48 am

Well I dont think Edwards will be Obama's pick.

But it wont surprise me if the final pick is a lawyer.

It wont surprise me if the republicans nominate a lawyer either.

But for some reason that fact seems to be glossed over for all of them besides Edwards.

Wonder why that is?

by Aaron Fri Aug 01, 2008 9:44 am

Perhaps because Edwards is the bottom of the barrel, the worst of the worst. He's not one of the fish in the tank, he's the scum sucker that eats off the sides.

That would be my thoughts at least.

Oh, and he's a pathological liar.

by **Stephanie** Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:15 am

ziggy wrote:How should those judges define "frivilous suits"?

And what about that pesky Constitution?

Amendment VII:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

How about by suspending the licenses of lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits? Nowhere in COTUS does it say that lawyers have the right to perpetuate this crap.

by ziggy Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:21 am

How about by suspending the licenses of lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits?

Stephanie, I think you misunderstood my question. which was / is:

How should those judges define "frivilous suits"?

by **Stephanie** Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:30 am

ohio county wrote:Sir, it is NOT our system to seek something for nothing. It is a mutation of our system that leads us to believe that nothing is ever our own fault. I really don't care what happens in California but I resent that our doctors are being chased out of state.

Wheeling lost our last neurosurgeon and Dan had the temerity to tell me from over two hundred miles away that he wasn't a good physician because he had been sued before. Unmitigated bullshit. He was sued because he was an easy mark because he'd made an unfortunate choice in his field of practice.

My brother, a family physician, loved delivering babies. He plastered their pcitures up all over the place and followed them with great interest. Despite the fact he'd never had a malpractice suit he was told he was not to deliver babies. An attorney he retained to defend against malpractice sued him ("Sorry. The money's better.") The suit was thrown out long before it ever went to trial since he'd done everything possible. Not a settlement. The suit was thrown out. He's had trouble getting malpractice insurance ever since.

The scum-sucking lawyers can go to hell.

SEE??? THIS IS WHAT I'M SCREAMING ABOUT!!!

Those lawyers don't give a rat's ass about "victims of malpractice". Those lawyers continue to get rich and these doctors are suffering. To hell with the doctors, right? What about the populations they serve(d)? Who cares about them? Certainly not those leeches who are bankrupting the healthcare system.

by **Stephanie** Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:37 am

ziggy wrote:
How about by suspending the licenses of lawyers who file frivilous lawsuits?

Stephanie, I think you misunderstood my question. which was / is:

How should those judges define "frivilous suits"?

Every time the plaintiff loses a case it should be considered frivilous. Those ambulance chasers make a mint off of those enormous awards and they're all looking for big paydays and they gamble. Everybody knows it, some just aren't willing to admit it.

Make them pay for costs each and every time they lose and too many strikes, license suspension. That would eliminate the incentive to chase ambulances, don't you think?

by ziggy Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:40 am

Every time the plaintiff loses a case it should be considered frivilous.

That is about the most incredible statement I have ever seen you make, friend Stephanie.

by ziggy Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:47 am

Make them pay for costs each and every time they lose and too many strikes, license suspension.

So who should be made to pay those costs? The plaintiff who filed the lawsuit? Or his/her attorney- who will get paid little or nothing for the case anyway? Your soultion would cause parties injured by someone else's negligence to just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I might lose this case to a jury, and still have to pay the costs of the guy who injured me; so I'll just have to endure the costs of his negligence myself."

by Aaron Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:51 am

Eliminate contingency fees with large percentages based on the amount won for the lawyer and set a dollar amount they can make off a case based on actual work done and it will eliminate the frivolous suits.

by **Stephanie** Fri Aug 01, 2008 11:58 am

ziggy wrote:
Make them pay for costs each and every time they lose and too many strikes, license suspension.

So who should be made to pay those costs? The plaintiff who filed the lawsuit? Or his/her attorney- who will get paid little or nothing for the case anyway? Your soultion would cause parties injured by someone else's negligence to just shrug their shoulders and say, "Well, I might lose this case to a jury, and still have to pay the costs of the guy who injured me; so I'll just have to endure the costs of his negligence myself."

The attorney.

You're assuming that everytime a medical outcome isn't what a patient would like or expect is "negligent". That simply is not true.

Besides, just as there is more than one way to skin a cat there is more than one way to provide a pool of money to compensate patients for bad outcomes. This is a brilliant concept.

HR 3076 is specifically designed to address the medical malpractice crisis that threatens to drive thousands of American doctors- especially obstetricians- out of business. The bill provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit that permits consumers to purchase "negative outcomes" insurance prior to undergoing surgery or other serious medical treatments. Negative outcomes insurance is a novel approach that guarantees those harmed receive fair compensation, while reducing the burden of costly malpractice litigation on the health care system. Patients receive this insurance payout without having to endure lengthy lawsuits, and without having to give away a large portion of their award to a trial lawyer. This also drastically reduces the costs imposed on physicians and hospitals by malpractice litigation. Under HR 3076, individuals can purchase negative outcomes insurance at essentially no cost.

by SamCogar Sat Aug 02, 2008 7:52 am

The Charlotte Observer has obtained the birth certificate of Frances Quinn Hunter, who the National Enquirer says is the love child of former Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards and his alleged mistress Rielle Hunter. But, the certificate does not identify a father — even though the baby was born more than two months after former Edwards campaign Finance Director Andrew Young claimed that he was the father.

The National Enquirer reported last week that Edwards visited Hunter — and the child — at a hotel in California on July 21.

by **SheikBen** Sat Aug 02, 2008 9:48 am

I should like to see a definition of frivolous suit and then allow for defendants in lawsuits the power to sue for the frivolous suits, up to the amount of the original suit.

by ziggy Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:48 am

Aaron wrote:Eliminate contingency fees with large percentages based on the amount won for the lawyer and set a dollar amount they can make off a case based on actual work done and it will eliminate the frivolous suits.

And so you you believe in wage and price controls.

by ziggy Sat Aug 02, 2008 10:53 am

SheikBen wrote:I should like to see a definition of frivolous suit and then allow for defendants in lawsuits the power to sue for the frivolous suits, up to the amount of the original suit.

This would have the effect of someone who had suffered damages because of someone else's negligence, but who lost because of an unsympathetic jury or lousy legal counsel- or both- then having to suffer even more damages.

by SFCraig Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:06 am

Financial disincentives also would have the effect of discouraging lawyers from taking on unpopular cases, David v. Goliath type cases, or those of the poor.

I have an idea...how about if the average citizens get free O.J. style lawyers and the corporations get the Public Defenders?

by ziggy Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:11 am

by **Stephanie** Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:15 am

ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:I should like to see a definition of frivolous suit and then allow for defendants in lawsuits the power to sue for the frivolous suits, up to the amount of the original suit.

This would have the effect of someone who had suffered damages because of someone else's negligence, but who lost because of an unsympathetic jury or lousy legal counsel- or both- then having to suffer even more damages.

Not if it is the attorneys who are being sued.

by ziggy Sat Aug 02, 2008 11:26 am

Not if it is the attorneys who are being sued.

You would sue my attorney because I suffered damages from someone's negligence- but failed to make my case to the satisfaction of a jury?

by **Stephanie** Sat Aug 02, 2008 12:09 pm

ziggy wrote:
Not if it is the attorneys who are being sued.

You would sue my attorney because I suffered damages from someone's negligence- but failed to make my case to the satisfaction of a jury?

Would I? I think you should. lol

Nah.......the best way is to penalize the lawyer. If your attorney is so incompetent he/she didn't win your case, that attorney needs to be punished as motivation to do a better job or pick a new career.

The majority of medical professionals are talented, caring, dedicated people who try their best to improve the lives of the patients they serve. A minority are callous, incompetent, or scam artists.

With malpractice attorneys it's the complete opposite. They don't care they drive good doctors out of practice and force hospitals to refuse some procedures to be performed. They sure as hell aren't concerned about the welfare of the patients.

Some fields the malpractice premiums have become so high the best and brightest avoid them like the plague and doctors with experience are switching careers or retiring and this hurts everyone.

I like Ron Paul's solution to the problem. Patients who suffer neglect are compensated and good doctors aren't burdened with outrageous malpractice premiums and are free to decide the best course of treatment for their patients and it would lower the cost of healthcare.

In 2000 the dentist I worked for paid $1900 a month for malpractice insurance. His premiums went up each and every year I worked for him. That doctor had been practicing general dentistry for 11 years without a single claim ever having been filed against him, much less won. The loan on the practice, payroll, lab fees, and supplies, utilities, and rent for the office space, left him making about the same as I did on an hourly basis, and I wasn't in debt to the tune of $125,000 in student loans.

I saw him when I went home last year. At 45 y/o he's paid off the loan on the business, but he's still paying those student loans off and his own children are now in college! He still hasn't had a malpractice claim filed against him and his insurance premiums are still climbing.

by **SheikBen** Sat Aug 02, 2008 3:59 pm

ziggy wrote:
SheikBen wrote:I should like to see a definition of frivolous suit and then allow for defendants in lawsuits the power to sue for the frivolous suits, up to the amount of the original suit.

This would have the effect of someone who had suffered damages because of someone else's negligence, but who lost because of an unsympathetic jury or lousy legal counsel- or both- then having to suffer even more damages.

You missed that I would like to see frivolous suits defined. Someone could lose a lawsuit and it could still fail to be frivolous.

by SamCogar Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:39 am

It is not the Lawyers or the Courts that is the root case of the problem, ....... it is the Jurors themselves.

And there is no way in ell one can Legislate against their mindset.

Sherm's candidate in trouble, but no one is talking. - Page 2 49761

Sympathy for the claimant or hate/dislike for the defendent ...... more often than not overrides any guilt or innocence of the defendent.

Cheers

by **SheikBen** Sun Aug 03, 2008 7:42 am

Sam,

I think you're onto something, here. I also wonder if the jurors aren't themselves often a little "dreamy" about the prospect of themselves one day "hitting this lottery" and being able to retire.

by Sponsored content