Online Now 591

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Online now 502
Record: 4487 (2/14/2012)

Boards ▾

OUInsider - Owen Field

The place for the most trusted source for reliable, accurate information on OU Sports

Basketball & Other Sports

Men's & women's basketball, baseball, softball and other OU sports

O'Connell's Off Topic

The place for discussion on topics not related to the Oklahoma Sooners

Tickets Exchange

The place to buy, sell or trade tickets

Reply

Tort reform

  • Something has to be done.

    Not only are there too many frivolous law suits, many many suits are settled simply because it is too expensive to litigate them. I know the company I worked for paid out a 50,000 settlement simply because our attorney told us it would cost 500,000 to fight it in court. And he was serious! And our company had a strong defense, but what can you do rolling the dice like that?

  • I have read a lot of responses about having a problem with frivolous suits. I am not sure about nationwide, I practice in Oklahoma and frivolous suits are not that common. However, if you really believe frivolous suits are the problem, then explain to me how tort reform will stop it. I would guess that you cannot. The senators that support it also cannot explain how it will stop frivolous suits. The only thing that this legislation will do is hurt the people that are seriously injured.

    I have asked this question several times and have not gotten a response, so once again, if your child or spouse was critically injured by a doctor, hospital or faulty product, would you be okay with only being able to receive $250k for his or her pain and suffering.

    We live in a very conservative state, so why does the government have to step in and give us a limit, why not let the conservative people of the state of Oklahoma decide what amount is appropriate.

  • If the company truly believed it would cost $500,000 to defend a case that was a sham, and not really worth even $50,000, then it is good thing you no longer work for that company, in fact you may want short some of their stock.

  • Texas capped malpractice a few years back to $250k. I have yet to see the promised reduction in my medical rates.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    I have read a lot of responses about having a problem with frivolous suits. I am not sure about nationwide, I practice in Oklahoma and frivolous suits are not that common. However, if you really believe frivolous suits are the problem, then explain to me how tort reform will stop it. I would guess that you cannot. The senators that support it also cannot explain how it will stop frivolous suits. The only thing that this legislation will do is hurt the people that are seriously injured.

    I have asked this question several times and have not gotten a response, so once again, if your child or spouse was critically injured by a doctor, hospital or faulty product, would you be okay with only being able to receive $250k for his or her pain and suffering.

    We live in a very conservative state, so why does the government have to step in and give us a limit, why not let the conservative people of the state of Oklahoma decide what amount is appropriate.

    nm

    This post was edited by SoonerInTN 12 months ago

  • FtwTxSooner said... (original post)

    Texas capped malpractice a few years back to $250k. I have yet to see the promised reduction in my medical rates.

    What? Are you saying politicians failed to be truthful?

    "tort reform" is simply a campaign contribution tool used to obtain donations for election.

  • Zeeb, that was not OK. A jury of your peers in OK would have told you to be more careful when you drink hot coffee. Hot coffee means HOT COFFEE;).

    OK has some of the very lowest awards in the country. Tort reform is not needed.

    I think I have more faith in 12 jurors than a group of OK legislators.

  • oulabman said... (original post)

    Zeeb, that was not OK. A jury of your peers in OK would have told you to be more careful when you drink hot coffee. Hot coffee means HOT COFFEE;).

    OK has some of the very lowest awards in the country. Tort reform is not needed.

    I think I have more faith in 12 jurors than a group of OK legislators.

    I can assure you we do have some of the most conservative jurors in the country. We do not have runaway jury verdicts or crazy frivolous suits that get nationwide attention. So the question is why do we need tort reform. Mary Failing will sign the bill once it hits her desk without even reading it. The reason we are going to have tort reform is because the chamber of commerce, insurance companies, doctors and big companies are passing their own legislation through the republicans they put in office. Tort reform does not help citizens of our state.

    Most people that support tort reform are misinformed as to why we need it or simply do not think it could happen to them. I never got a response to my question, and that is do you still support tort reform if it is your spouse or child that is seriously injured and now needs life long 24 hour care for the rest of their life.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    I can assure you we do have some of the most conservative jurors in the country. We do not have runaway jury verdicts or crazy frivolous suits that get nationwide attention. So the question is why do we need tort reform. Mary Failing will sign the bill once it hits her desk without even reading it. The reason we are going to have tort reform is because the chamber of commerce, insurance companies, doctors and big companies are passing their own legislation through the republicans they put in office. Tort reform does not help citizens of our state.

    Most people that support tort reform are misinformed as to why we need it or simply do not think it could happen to them. I never got a response to my question, and that is do you still support tort reform if it is your spouse or child that is seriously injured and now needs life long 24 hour care for the rest of their life.

    Yes, I support tort reform particularly if I have a child who is born with CP and John Edwards is an attorney who represents people like me sueing doctors and hospitals for multimillions without a shred of scientific proof. This crook made millions off that little scam which has now been disproven, but then again slime all lasers who prey on sympathetic jury is nothing new and there is no shortage of scumbags like him.

  • OUatty...you are asking for someone to answer your question about if a wife or child required 24/7 care. Isn't the legislation to cap punitive damages? Correct me if I'm wrong. Isn't the scenario you ask actual damages? The cap wouldn't apply to the expense for those direct damages.

  • The legislation limits non-economic damages to $250k. These “Non-economic damages” include things like pain, suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of a limb, blindness, paralysis, loss of sexual function, disfigurement, loss of bladder and bowel control, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation. Such caps also discriminate against children, women, the elderly, minorities and low wage earners. Examples are as follows:

    - Employment income is the basis for calculating most economic damage awards. Noneconomic damage caps discriminate against children because children have no income
    upon which to base a calculation.

    - One of the more significant injuries that can be inflicted upon women is harm to
    reproductive capacity. However, that injury does not impact her earning capacity or
    entitle her to recover economic damages despite the devastating emotional impact that
    such a loss may cause.

    - Caps discriminate against retired seniors, who often suffer neglect and abuse in nursing
    homes and other long-term care facilities, because they also have no employment
    income.

    - Caps have an impact on the most serious injuries. Those impacted by more than half of
    the time are cases involving brain damage, catastrophic loss, and paralysis.

    So yes it would cover medical expenses for 24/7 care if it were actually awarded by a jury. However, it would not cover someone's minor daughter who is severely injured and will never be able to work- not one single day in their life, not be able to have children, or experience life the way everyone else does. It would not award your spouse that you just married and is severely injured by a botched surgery and will now never be able to have children of her own, which means you will not have children either.

    My point regarding tort reform is leave it in the hands of our peers, who reside in one of the most conservative states in the nation. Why should the government step in and limit what we are entitled to. Why should Oklahomans allow your legislators to dictate to you what you are entitled to. Oklahomans deserve to know that tort reform is put in place to help doctors, hospitals, corporations, chamber of commerce, etc..it has no impact on alleviating frivolous suits, and it provides no protection to the citizens of Oklahoma.

  • OUatty said... (original post)

    The legislation limits non-economic damages to $250k. These “Non-economic damages” include things like pain, suffering, mental anguish, emotional distress, loss of a limb, blindness, paralysis, loss of sexual function, disfigurement, loss of bladder and bowel control, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation. Such caps also discriminate against children, women, the elderly, minorities and low wage earners. Examples are as follows:

    - Employment income is the basis for calculating most economic damage awards. Noneconomic damage caps discriminate against children because children have no income upon which to base a calculation.

    - One of the more significant injuries that can be inflicted upon women is harm to reproductive capacity. However, that injury does not impact her earning capacity or entitle her to recover economic damages despite the devastating emotional impact that such a loss may cause.

    - Caps discriminate against retired seniors, who often suffer neglect and abuse in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities, because they also have no employment income.

    - Caps have an impact on the most serious injuries. Those impacted by more than half of the time are cases involving brain damage, catastrophic loss, and paralysis.

    So yes it would cover medical expenses for 24/7 care if it were actually awarded by a jury. However, it would not cover someone's minor daughter who is severely injured and will never be able to work- not one single day in their life, not be able to have children, or experience life the way everyone else does. It would not award your spouse that you just married and is severely injured by a botched surgery and will now never be able to have children of her own, which means you will not have children either.

    My point regarding tort reform is leave it in the hands of our peers, who reside in one of the most conservative states in the nation. Why should the government step in and limit what we are entitled to. Why should Oklahomans allow your legislators to dictate to you what you are entitled to. Oklahomans deserve to know that tort reform is put in place to help doctors, hospitals, corporations, chamber of commerce, etc..it has no impact on alleviating frivolous suits, and it provides no protection to the citizens of Oklahoma.

    I see what you're saying. We need to start suing attorneys that pursue frivolous lawsuits!

  • TIMB0B said... (original post)

    I see what you're saying. We need to start suing attorneys that pursue frivolous lawsuits!

    You would single handedly shut down the profession.

  • The certification of a case by an medical doctor before it can be filed as it now stands is a blatant joke. I have seen these “certifications” come from discredited doctors (doctor had been run out of Oklahoma for prescription violations) and from doctors that are nothing but attorney whores (doctor offices in same building with lawyer). Frivilous suits still live.

  • oulabman said... (original post)

    Zeeb, that was not OK. A jury of your peers in OK would have told you to be more careful when you drink hot coffee. Hot coffee means HOT COFFEE;).

    OK has some of the very lowest awards in the country. Tort reform is not needed.

    I think I have more faith in 12 jurors than a group of OK legislators.

    Have you ever been on jury duty??? I promise you, I would NOT have wanted some of the goofs on a jury that decided my fate. One guy, on the first day of orientation wore a hat that had a bright-colored rooster all over the front, the words "cock-fight" on the back and a missing button on the top. He also brought his wife into the courtroom for orientation.

    Guess who the first person selected for the first trial was???