Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

by **ohio county** Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:34 am

"I dissent to express my hope that, in the future, the court or the Legislature will recognize the absurd and unconstitutional effects of the (reform) and either strike down or repeal (the reform) in its entirety," Starcher wrote in a dissenting opinion last week.

Justice Starcher has reference to the Medical Professional Liability Act of 1986. Why didn't he, as an officer of the court, move to strike it down last week? I wouldn't complain if the Medical Professional Liability Act of 1986 caused an outward migration of lawyers rather than doctors.

http://www.dailymail.com/News/200801020180

The Justice's comments reflect his thinking that the sun rises and sets on the judiciary rather than the citizenry. Good riddance.

by ziggy Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:40 am

ohio county wrote:The Justice's comments reflect his thinking that the sun rises and sets on the judiciary rather than the citizenry.

As to constitutionality of the Act- the focus of the Starcher quote- it does.

by **ohio county** Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:59 am

They why did he fail to do his duty and strike it down?

by **Stephanie** Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:19 am

ohio county wrote:They why did he fail to do his duty and strike it down?

Is he another do-nothing-but-whine spineless wonder?

by **Stephanie** Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:29 am

A very viable solution to the malpractice crisis can be found about half way down this page:

http://www.ronpaul2008.com/articles/262/lowering-the-cost-of-health-care/

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 ziggy Wed Jan 02, 2008 11:33 am

ohio county wrote:They why did he fail to do his duty and strike it down?

Well, unless I misunderstand the story, he did what he could; he dissented from the majority opinion.

As I understand it, the appealed lower court decision was not about the constitutionality of the specific Act itself, but about how the lawsuit was filed- as a product liability case instead of as a medical malpractice case.

Beyond that, can an Appeals Court judge, on his own motion, move to strike down a law as unconstitutional- but which the litigant(s) in the case at bar do not ask for such a strike in the appeal?

by SamCogar Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:16 pm

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.

Well now, I wish the patients luck on that.

Insurance companies don't like to make big "payouts" either.

It would be great for the physicians and hospitals though, ....... Laughing

by Sponsored content

Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling

Re: Justice Starcher Takes Exception to Legislative Meddling