O'Connell's Off Topic

More likely they both stretch the truth.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

You would single handedly shut down the profession.

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???