Ask the lawyer about tort reform laws

Here is a good article about what the Germans think about our tort system. Mysteriously, it does not mention David Hasselhoff.

And here is a summary of recent German tort reform. This tort reform expanded liability and damages.

http://www.indret.com/rcs_articulos/eng/127.pdf

Good article about civil jury trials in BC (arguing that their decrease is a bad idea)

http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Analysis/Collection/03-civiljurytrials?practiceAreaMessage=true&practiceArea=Personal%20Injury

Detailed discussion of non-economic damages and juries in England, the United States of America, British Columbia, Ontario and the Supreme Court of Canada.

http://www.cle.bc.ca/CLE/Analysis/Collection/01-5023301-nonpecuniary?practiceAreaMessage=true&practiceArea=Personal%20Injury

Article on efforts in the US to stop jury trials in complex cases.

http://www.piercelaw.edu/RISK/vol1/winter/bownes.htm

What about frivolous lawsuits. Bush seems to blame the rising cost of insurance on them. Have you seen a lot of frivolous lawsuits?

Four years ago, i almost made it to being a juror in a stupid lawsuit. This trial resulted in the highest damage award ever awrded in Massachusetts, to that date (I think it was >$150 million). Anyway (bear with me, i haven’t a link): The lawsuit was brought by a man who was riding his bicycle one night, down a sidewalk in Lowell, MA. As he rode by the MACOM plant, he collided with a gate (which had been left open by a security guard). His collision with the gate resulted in head ans spine injuries, from which he required medical care in several Boston hospitals. He brought suit against (1) MACOM corp., (2) Burns Security, and one other party.
I didn’t get picked as juror, but from what i see, both parties were negligent. The gate should not have been left open. But this idiot was also at fault: he was riding a bicycle at night, without a headlamp, at a high rate of speed, and onb the sidewalk (illegal in MA). he was also not wearing a helmet, and he was drunk at the time.
After the accident, MACOM’s insurance carrier paid this idiot’s hospital bills (which were considerable)…they also proposed an out-of-court settlement (which he refused).
What are we to make of this? Somebody so reckless and stupid gets into an accident, then wants to be rewarded for his stupidity? Suppose the sidewalk was clear, and he collided witha security guard-would he then have a case for damages?
I don’t know the status of this case-presumably MACOM and Burns have appealed. But this whole action has consumed hundreds of man-hours of time…courts, lawyers, expert witnesses , etc, A completely unptoductive use of resources.

All litigators see frivolous claims and defenses. Having worked for a sleazeball ambulance chaser (I used to find news searches lying around for things like car crash +amputated arm), I got an education.

Want some examples:

Cases with no liability

–He filed suit on behalf of a woman who, while driving drunk, had crashed into the back of a garbage truck. The truck had flashing lights on the back of it and the flourescent orange triangle in the street.

–He wanted me to sue the manufacturer of a deep fryer. It was in a school cafeteria where a school janitor had stepped in it. I said no.

–When I was working for the high profile lawyer, there was a disgruntled ex-employee incident that everyone saw on the news. The guy invaded the office and shot some people. The standoff ended when he came out of the building with a shotgun taped to an employee’s head. When he refused to drop the gun, the cops blew him away. We got a call from the shotgun holder’s family. They thought we could sue because he had already fired the gun twice, and “everyone knew that shotguns only hold two shells.” Again, I declined the case.

Even more common are cases where the plaintiff simply lies

–I inherited a case where a guy had two claims for cars that had been “stolen” and torched. The case was already set for summary judgment, though the previous lawyer had done a poor job. I rebriefed it and won the case, despite my doubts that the plaintiff was telling the truth. He also had a personal injury case arising from a rear-end collision. He was the front car. His primary injury was a ruptured achilles tendon. The case moved along. Eventually I found a note in his medical records where he told his doctor one week before the accident that he had injured the tendon when a Samoan guy fell on him while he was playing basketball. I only discovered this about a week before the case was set for arbitration. I was amazed that the lawyer representing the insurance company featured this item at the end of a six page brief, and didn’t mention it at all at the arbitration. Ultimately karma caught up with the plaintiff (my colleagues nicknamed him the Lyin’ Hawaiian) when he was videotaped doing heavy landscaping work despite his claims that he could not work because of his ankle and his back.

–My friend was conned into filing a complaint for a woman who was seeking compensation for an abortion. It was later established that she had never been pregnant.

But there are also frivolous defenses and dirty tricks played by defense attorneys

–In a products liability case involving brake fluid boil over (when your brake fluid boils over, your brakes don’t work, and you usually crash into something). This particular accident happend while the plaintiff was driving her new truck down a volcano. People heading in the other direction testified that they saw the people in the truck in an obvious state of distress, that was just before they lost control and died in a fiery crash. Anyway, the manufacturer argued that the brake fluid had not boiled over, because the remains of the brake assembly would have looked different if it had. Sadly, the same expert had made the same argument in another case, and used photos from our case as an example of clear evidence of brake fluid boilover.

–Represented a passenger in a car that belonged to the driver’s father, or rather the driver’s father’s car lot. They had been drinking and drugging all the way up to Michigan from Texas, literally flinging spent liquor and pill bottles out the window. They ultimately crashed, and my client died in the accident. Defense counsel’s brilliant defense? Lack of personal jurisdiction because neither defendant was a resident of Michigan. An argument that the United States Supreme Court had rejected a mere half a decade before.

So it cuts both ways. And in either case, there are already rules in place to deal with frivolous lawsuits.

And oh yeah, a frivolous lawsuit can’t result in a huge verdict, because a frivolous lawsuit has no merit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frivolous_lawsuit. It can waste people’s time and money, though.

I’m interested in this discussion. However, I can say that I don’t even have a good working definition of “tort reform,” beyond it having to do with medical malpractice and insurance costs. (That is, the buzzwords that were bandied about before the election.)

From what I gathered from watching the presidential debates, Bush simply claimed that damages in malpractice suits were driving up medical insurance, which in turn was forcing doctors to close their practices. By passing federal limits on damages, insurance would come down and (more) doctors would be able to stay in business.

I find the argument to be terribly unconvincing, if not just wrong. And not in the political sense, but in a purely syllogistic manner. However, I have no idea as to the mechanics or scope of the thing and profess my ignorance willingly. (For instance, worker’s compensation was brought up earlier in this thread. Is it part of the argument? I’d never have thought of it. Similarly, states rights vs. federal law. Ditto regarding a relationship to liability.) Coming from such a level of ignorance, I can’t even formulate a decent question. What I’d like to have is a brief summary of what we’re discussing, what current policies are in place, and what reforms are being proposed.

I’d think you’d get much more discussion with some groundwork established. I’m not sure the average person (or even the average doper) has the foundation for discussion (at least I don’t). I’m also not sure that one can so easily separate the “nuts & bolts” from the ethics discussion. Perhaps this should even be a new thread in Great Debates? It’s certainly worthy of it. Of course, I expect it’s quite a bit of work to frame it properly, so I can’t blame you for not doing so…

Or, perhaps you can just answer two questions you yourself proposed in the OP: What sorts of tort reform have been tried? What are the probable effects of proposed tort reform? Assume, since this is the case, that I have no clear idea of what “torts” are, what they encompass, and how they currently operate.

[disclaimer]IANAL[/disclaimer]
How will the child’s life be improved? A lot, probably, seeing that he’ll need extensive support services and care throughout his life. Can you put a monetary value on 50 lost IQ points, over a person’s life? I don’t think you can; the injury is too egregious. If the OB/GYN was at fault, he or the insurance company shoiuld pay.

This isn’t to say that there are no abuses, and that frivelous lawsuits never happen. Sure there are some thing about the tort system that should be reformed. But for many clients who cannot afford to hire lawyers, the contingent fee arrangement is their only access to legal redress of grievances. By drastically reducing the potential awards, you discourage attorneys from working on contingency since the final payout would be so much reduced. Which makes tort reform extremely regressive, IMHO.

Thanks.

Here is a link to a good summary of the current tort reform issues. It includes an explanation of tort and some other basic stuff like that.

http://www.newsbatch.com/tort.htm

Here is another

http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Tort

Tort reform measures include limits on contingency fees, modification of liability rules, requirements that certain cases be taken before expert panels before they can proceed, requirements that experts approve the case before it can go forward, caps on various kinds of damages, laws that require punitive damage awards to be paid into a fund, and no-fault compensation systems that attempt to do away with civil tort cases in favor of a social insurance system. I think that covers the basics.

The effects of the proposed tort reform provisions will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction because some jurisdictions already have similar rules in place. My prediction of the overall trend: Average damage awards will drop to some extent, frivolous lawsuits will increase as lawyers’ fees are cut, and insurance premiums will continue to rise. Ultimately, portions of the measure will be found to be unconstitutional,which will cause damage awards to increase slightly, frivolous lawsuits to decrease, and insurance premiums to continue to rise.

The links that I have posted elsewhere in this thread explain tort reform in greater detail, explain tort law, explain how other countries do it, and evaluate the effects of various attempts at tort reform.

Regarding Federal vs. state law, the Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed that a subject matter must truly affect interstate commerce in order for Congress to legislate on the subject under the Commerce Clause. UNITED STATES v. MORRISON

The effects of high medical malpractice premiums on doctors does not appear to have much of a relationship to interstate commerce at all.

Here is a link to a Slate article, in which Dahlia Lithwick argues that the Supreme Court has painted itself into a corner when it comes to the United States’ position on medical marijuana laws.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2110204/

The same logic applies to tort reform, or so one could argue.

First, you didn’t get picked as a juror, so how do you know what the evidence showed at trial?

Second, if both parties are negligent, the damages are usually reduced by the percentage of fault that the jurty attributes to the plaintiff. This is called comparative negligence. The actual reduction is usually done by the judge after the trial. News reports frequently omit this information because reporters do not understand it.

This is true of the much-revisited McDonald’s coffee case.

So, I suppose that the first question that needs to be settled is: What justification is there for making this a federal issue? (I have plenty more questions, but it only makes sense to ground them first.)

To me, it’s obvious that torts should be decided on the state level (if not the local level). I’m sure there are arguments against it, but it seems that the term “interstate commerce” is, paraphrasing that Slate article to which you linked, bordering on meaningless. Since I don’t want to start a debate about that, let’s rule it out. What other justification is there that puts it on a federal level? I think there needs to be some, since there seems to be some concern about whether these laws would be constitutional or not. Or should I just accept that there is some justification, even if it’s “A majority of Republicans want it, they control Congrees, so it’ll happen.”

Section 8 enumerates the legislative powers of Congress, and it doesn’t include any other good candidates.

Bush’s justification is: “This liability system, I’m telling you, is out of control . . . “Because the system is so unpredictable, there is a constant risk of being hit by a massive jury award,” Bush said. “It’s a system that’s just not fair. It’s costly for the doctors; it’s costly for small businesses; it’s costly for hospitals. It is really costly for patients.”

But that’s hardly a juridical hook upon which to hang such an intrusion into something that has traditionally been the concern of the states.

The Supreme Court , way back in 1938, said:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=304&invol=64 (Emphasis added).

So I’d say there is no Constitutional justification. Obviously, Bush is not proposing tort reform because he has nothing better to do. And as I have pointed out, the American public at large does not really seem concerned about it. So, why do you think he is really doing this? Is he out to be the arbiter of fairness? Because if he is, most people seem to be suggesting he start elsewhere. . .

Forgot the citation for the Bush quote. Though I have given it before in this thread.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6789233/

Oh yeah, and the other side of the equation is this:

If state tort law and its impact on the cost of insurance is a federal issue, why is the business of insurance itself not also a federal issue? The business of insurance has had a nifty carve-out from federal regulation for over fifty years.

http://graham.main.nc.us/~bhammel/INS/MF.html

Is it time to repeal the McCarran-Ferguson Act?

Here is the text of the act that was passed by the House in 2003

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c10824ajJA::

This is the one that Bush is trying to pass in the Senate now.

OTOH, these Bills, which included provisions affecting insurers, never got rolling:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.1116.IH:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:4:./temp/~c108XTmTVj::

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:23:./temp/~c108XTmTVj::
Here is another good discussion of the proposals and the arguments that people are making about them.

http://www.americanvoice2004.org/health/malpractice.html

OK, thanks. So, it looks as if there’s no justification for federally mandating tort reform. In some sense, if that’s the case, it makes the rest of the discussion moot. Not that you’re claiming to be a constitutional scholar, but would it be possible for an opponent of tort reform to bring a case before the courts to overturn any tort reform laws that get passed?

At any rate, looking back at the MSNBC link posted earlier, we have this:

To sum up, in this regard, it looks like Bush (being the foremost mouthpiece for reform) is trying to blow smoke up our collective asses. Looking over the other posts and links, I don’t really see how this is anything but a money grab by insurance companies and other corporations. It’s not that I don’t see issues that could use some reforming, but what’s being presented as tort reform doesn’t touch on them.

Much time passes, many links are clicked, much reading is done.

Bleah. Looking over all that information is making me sick (of politicians). And angry. Upon preview, I notice that Gfactor has posted a couple more links. Looking them over, I find that I’m quite the liberal in this regard. In particular, I think that these points (from the American Voice article) are telling:
[ol]
[li]When stock prices and bond interest rates fell, insurer income fell, prompting them to hike rates…A January 2004 report by the Congressional Budget Office(CBO) concludes, “annual investment returns for the nation’s 15 largest malpractice insurers dropped by an average of 1.6 percentage points from 2000 to 2002—enough to account for a 7.2 % increase in premium rates. That figure corresponds to almost half of the 15 % increase in rates estimated by the CMS.”[/li][li]Liberals point to a study by the CBO that found that medical malpractice insurance accounts for less than 2 percent of health care spending.[/li][li]The task force also noted, “Physicians surveyed by the study team underestimated the incidence of medically caused morbidity and mortality by a factor of 10.”[/li][li]A Public Citizen analysis of National Practitioner Data Bank records from September 1990 to September 2002 found that the 5.1 percent of doctors who paid two or more malpractice awards were responsible for 54 percent of all payouts. Only 7.6 percent of these doctors had been disciplined by state medical boards. Only 1 out of 6 who had five or more malpractice payouts had been disciplined.[/li][/ol]
At any rate, thanks for the links. I think I’ve taken in more than I can handle at this point. Beyond limiting contingency fees to a sub-usury percentage plus a couple percentage points (state usury summary) and perhaps a review board to pre-screen cases (sort of a grand jury for tort cases), I’m of the opinion that, if anything, the system is pretty good the way it is.

Well it gets a little tricky. You probably would not be able to simply attack the statute. You need standing to do that. So you would probably need to have the act applied to your case and then object to it on constitutional grounds. The case would then proceed through the state court system, and if the fight were still going on (that is, nobody has settled, or simply dropped the issue) it would then go to the Supreme Court. If the case was tried in Federal Court for some reason (diversity of citizenship, for example), then path would be District Court, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court.

Have you seen corpreform.com? Check it out, and if you agree with the message of it, let me know. My e-mail is on the site, and I’m also in Michigan. I’m looking to get together with some like-minded people.

Justinian

I think that this

is what you were talking about. The quote is from the American Voice article cited above.

I have seen similar statements elsewhere.

Not only does it cost the family a lifetimes worth of support to care for the child, the child will never grow up to earn money on his own.

…but you should be aware that most of these articles come from the American Bar Association, which is a trade group for lawyers. they are not about to say anything about tort reform (except to oppose it). I don’t buy their propaganda, for many reasons:
-Insurance companies are in business to make money. If they cannot clear a profit (even with the high premiums charges), that means their cash flow is negative. Blaming this on the stock market is a red herring-not every stock has declined, and they have vast portfolios.
-the Bar Association exists to promote the interests of its members-they are not about to criticize the behavior of lawyers. That is why all lawyers say that there are no “frivolous lawsuits”.
The whole point is moot, because until we enact some serious reforms, the medical profession will continue to raise its prices. Unlike product liability, doctors face unlimited liability…as I made the case about vaccines. There are almost no vaccines produced in the USA anymore-pharmaceutical companies do not want to assume the liability. (Merck wanted to stop making vaccines a few years back…when the US Dept, of health approached a Swiss mfg. as an alternative source, they basically said, “yes, we will make the vaccine for you, but all litigation and claims for damages have to be settled in the Swiss courts”.
That is pretty good proof that medical torts are out of control.

(paragraph numbering added)
::Looks for the “Jane, you ignorant slut” smiley. Shrugs.:: :smiley:

Wait. Wait. Wait.

  1. Unless by most, you mean, “one.” Then you are wrong. Few of the articles that I have cited come from the trial lawyer side of the debate. And the ABA is a trade association for lawyers–not just trial lawyers (that’s ATLA, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America). Many defense lawyers and most corporate lawyers are *for * tort reform, because defense lawyers represent insurance companies (actually they represent defendants, but they are hired by insurance companies) and corporate lawyers represent corporations. That’s why a quick search of the ABA’s website revealed this article from the AMA favoring tort reform. This is some poor propoganda for an organization that is trying to protect trial lawyers.

This one explains the ABA’s position:

  1. Not all insurance companies are business to make a profit. There are mutual insurance companies, which are owned by the policyholders. There are also risk pooling organizations, by which trade groups self-insure.

More important, do you know how much profit the insurance industry made last year? According to this, it was a lot, and it was more than the year before that. So I guess that means that their cash flow(?) is positive. Very positive.

  1. I have already explained that frivolous lawsuits and frivolous defenses are common. I bet I know more lawyers than you do (and I’m not boasting). None of them claim that frivolous lawsuits don’t exist. And most of them are offended by frivolous lawsuits. Problem is, most of the public does not understand what a frivolous lawsuit is. A frivolous lawsuit is one that has no chance of winning. It’s got nothing to do with the huge liability awards that people complain about. But it has everything to do with lawsuits costing more, and the courts being cluttered with judicial flotsam. How many times have I had to wait in court while some dope made an utterly meritless argument to the judge, or tried to save a lawsuit that should not have been filed in the first place? Just about every time. Same goes for frivolous defenses, and ridiculous stalling tactics.

  2. Are we talking about medical malpractice or products liability. Vaccines are products, and subject to product liability laws. Doctors are professionals, and subject to professional liability (malpractice) laws. There is a huge difference. And nobody is subject to “unlimited” liability. The Supreme Court has already capped punitive damages. The only damages that are not “limited” are compensatory damages (economic and non-economic damages are awarded to compensate injured people for their actual losses, which are determined by trier of fact).

And while we are at it, wouldn’t the best way to limit doctors fees be to simply regulate them? And wouldn’t the best way to regulate insurance premiums be to regulate them? That’s not a very “free market” approach to the problem, but it makes more sense than capping lawyers’ fees in the hopes that doctors and insurance companies will charge less. And capping compensatory damages for people who have been injured by doctors’ negligence (that’s right, let’s not forget that the only way the lawyer or the client sees a penny in the form of a verdict is to prove that the doctor failed to exercise ordinary care, and that the doctor’s failure to exercise ordinary care injured the plaintiff–these aren’t the frivolous lawsuits you are looking for). In fact, federal tort reform is anti-free market. It is big government. Isn’t it?

Finally, if doctor’s are practicing so much “defensive medicine,” in fear of getting sued, why are people able to get these “huge” judgments against them? Could it be because insurance companies, through financial disincentives actually discourage not only preventive medicine, but safe medicine?