O'Connell's Off Topic

We don't need tort reform. We need less law schools. We're turning out entirely too many lawyers who have nothing left to do but chase ambulances.

It effects everything. Why is healthcare costs out of control? Doctors have to order like ten times the number of tests neccesary to make sure they don't miss the smallest thing for fear that one of the ten trillion lawyers on the planet doesn't hammer them and act smug in the process.

Our whole society is sue happy. In fact.... I'll probably get sued for this post.

It is unconstitutional for the government to federalize contract and liability law. It is a state issue, so it must be dealt with locally.

As an attorney, I am obviously against it. Our founding fathers believed in allowing our peers to determine the damages, which is why we have juries. Why should we limit liability for dr.'s and corporations. Tort reform was passed back in 2009, and the republican senators at the time said it was sweeping tort reform, they praised it and said it would stop frivolous lawsuits. If you have paid attention to the republican senators such as Sykes who wrote the new bill, nowhere has he ever stated that this will stop frivolous suits. The reason he has not said such a thing is b/c we do not have a problem with frivolous suits.

Sykes is on record as stating that this will protect doctors and corporations. My question, is what does it do for the people of the state of Oklahoma. This will now allow doctors to act negligently and not worry about their actions as they will be immune to punishment. Corporations can now put out bad products and not have to worry about the damage, injuries and deaths that their products have caused because they are only on the hook for 250k. This is a joke. The people of the Oklahoma should not allow the government to limit their damages, it should be left to a jury.

Some other points made by Senator Sykes and his buddies are that doctors are leaving and going to Texas since they have tort reform. This is simply not true. We have the same amount of doctors per ratio of population as Texas. Sykes has also said that it will lower malpractice insurance rates for doctors which in turn will lower healthcare costs. Another lie, if you look at Texas they have had tort reform for 5-6 years and during this time the malpractice rates have risen. Oklahoma's malpractice rates have held steady since 2005 and have not increased, so why do we need tort reform. Simple, we do not, but the senators are in the back pocket of doctors and companies and will therefore push to protect them.

The US Census Bureau recently placed Oklahoma as the number one state in the country for population growth from 2000 to 2010 . . . due to the strong economy. If our economy is so good and our job market is so good, then why do we need tort reform.

My simple question for those who support tort reform, would you still support it if your wife was permanently injured and would need around the clock care for the rest of her life because some doctor screwed up, or some company made an incredibly bad product, or how about if one of your children was given the wrong medicine by a doctor and as a result will now need around the clock care and will never be able to live a normal life, do you still favor tort reform.

Here are some links to some stories of Oklahomans who have suffered at the hands of doctors.
http://okwatchdog.org/connie.cfm.
and http://www.okwatchdog.org/meet/clayton.cfm. Sorry I did not know how to post the link.

I don't think anyone wants to keep folks from getting their just compensation. However, we have a serious problem with the legal system when people name everyone and their dog to a law suit that is baseless and then everyone has to defend themselves at great expense or settle which is what they are hoping for in the first place.

An attorney told me the way to limit this is to make it possible to counter sue if you are successful in your defense and if the original plaintive (now defendant) has no money you can sue his attorney. Now about all you can sue for is some minor court costs I understand.

Suddenly, only just cases come to court. Problem is, a good percentage of the folks on the Supreme Court are lawyers so the racket will continue.

Guess we were typing at the same time Cyber. Very similar ideas.

nm

nm

I don't think lawyers or there families should be entitled to medical care. They almost single handly ensure CYA medicine occurs so I say.... they can CYA.

Maybe it's just a rumor, because I've never looked at the actual suit, but I thought this lady was around 70 years old.

There must be multiple cases, because I found a Stella Liebeck (who was 79 at the time) to be the first to sue McD's over the hot coffee incident.

Soonerquest,

In response to your points, can an attorney make good money on malpractice cases, the answer is yes, but they can easily lose $50k or more. That is why it is a contingency. You talk about attorneys taking too much, what about hospitals charging an outrageous amount, example $10 for 2 tylenol. The issue is not solely on attorneys as doctors and hospitals charge far more than what is reasonable.

As to whether the Plaintiffs actually follow the life plan, I do not know, but i would suggest you watch a couple of the videos I linked and let me know if $250k will cover the damages these 2 individuals received and if they will follow their life plan. (http://okwatchdog.org/connie.cfm. and http://www.okwatchdog.org/meet/clayton.cfm)

Your scenario presented on medical bills and insurance goes both ways. There are also laws that clearly favor the insured, such as not letting the jury know that the defendant has insurance. So yes you can make arguments both ways. The republican senators who are pushing this through are not doing so to stop attorneys from making large fees or protecting the citizens of the state of Oklahoma, they are doing so to support their buddies who fund their campaigns such as corporations, doctors, insurance companies and the chamber of commerce. Senator Sykes is on record as stating he wants to protect our companies and doctors, but what about his constituents and the citizens of the state of Oklahoma.

Your last statement about Oklahoma being pretty unfriendly state of business is completely wrong. You are making this statement without any facts to support it.
Here are my facts:

According to CNBC, it has ranked Oklahoma in its top 10 in several categories including: #1 Cost of Living, # 3 for Cost of Doing Business (2009 ranking was 6th), and #6 for the Overall Economy. According to Business Facilities Magazine 2010 Rankings Report, Oklahoma is ranked #2 for Quality of Life, #4 for Employment Leaders, #5 in Cost of Labor, and #7 in Biofuels Manufacturing Research. Oklahoma is ranked 15th of pro-business states in the country, according to the 2010 Pollina Corporate Real Estate, Inc. study. The Oklahoma Department of Commerce boasts that “From Forbes to Fortune to RelocateAmerica, almost every leading business magazine consistently ranks Oklahoma among the most recession proof, affordable, livable, and pro-business states in the country. Entrepreneurs and established companies alike recognize Oklahoma as the best place to launch and thrive.”

Oklahoma is clearly a friendly state for business. So my question is why do we need tort reform. If you claim it stops frivolous lawsuits, show me how, give me an example.

Lastly, do you still agree with tort reform and limiting losses to $250k if it is your spouse or child that needs 24 hour care for the rest of his / her life. Is it still okay for a doctor or corporation to only pay $250k when the person they injured cannot walk, talk or enjoy living a normal life. I would like for our government to stop stepping in and let the verdicts be left in the hands of a jury.

It sounds like you are insinuating that life care plan costs are subject to the proposed cap on pain and suffering, but that would be incorrect, right?

I understand the arguments on both sides. Attorneys have a personal financial interest to protect by opposing tort reform.

For years, attorneys promoted, pushed, lobbied and got liberal laws enacted that tilted the playing field against defendants and insurance companies. The playing field was not level by a long shot.

The overreaching and abuse of the lawsuit process has gone on for a while, and now the pendulum is swinging the other way. That shouldn't come as a surprise.

That, or the attorney that mediated the case wasn't telling the truth to him.