The Cellar - View Single Post

breakingnews · 08-30-2004, 09:22 PM

Actually tort reform measures in PA are aimed at limiting non-economic damages. Reform advocates say punitive damages - the "punishment," if you will - should be the measure by which the jury decides how flagrant or negligent a doctor was - if he deliberately or wrongfully made an error to begin with.

What they want to limit are non-economic damages - the pain and suffering damages that have no economic equivalent whatsoever (does not include lost income, which *can* be calculated). The reason this debate has swirled around PA is because Philadelphia, being an extremely blue-collar town, tends to have more sympathetic juries who believe patients who suffer malpractice should be awarded excessively. Kelly Ripa's sister, who broke her ankle and had a series of complications following, had her malpractice case moved to Philly, where she picked up $10 million in mostly "non-economic" damages back in February. That same day, another woman was awarded something like $6 million. It could be more, but those are the numbers I'm remembering off the top of my head.

There's no one person to blame. It's the system and how it works.

Lawyers push patients to go after malpractice suits because a) they typically charge 30-40% of the final award (this was limited to 25-30% back in 1998 or so), and b) the legal process has too many loopholes and trials get dragged out for months and years, so malpractice insurance companies often settle before it gets too expensive.

Doctors then are forced to practice defensive medicine - running as many tests as possible, covering all the ground necessary, in case a malpractice suit arises. If it does, he needs a full file of tests and other documentation to cover his ass.

This in turn causes health care costs to rise, making it prohibitively expensive for a good portion of the population. Many go uninsured and do not seek preventative care - so when there is a catastrophic problem, they go to the ER where the hospital has to pick up the tab and is now open to potential malpractice claims (happened in a few Philly hospitals - patients are so sick that doctors are unable to do much, yet they still manage to eek out awards).

So who's really at fault? Hard to say. Lawyers seem to be the enemy, but they're just out to make a buck like the rest of us. And people who suffer significant damage that could have been prevented should be entitled to some compensation. Doctors should be thorough in the examining room, but not at the kinds of prices people are seeing on their bills these days.

08-30-2004, 09:22 PM	#10
breakingnews Q_Q Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: somewhere in between Posts: 995	Actually tort reform measures in PA are aimed at limiting non-economic damages. Reform advocates say punitive damages - the "punishment," if you will - should be the measure by which the jury decides how flagrant or negligent a doctor was - if he deliberately or wrongfully made an error to begin with. What they want to limit are non-economic damages - the pain and suffering damages that have no economic equivalent whatsoever (does not include lost income, which can be calculated). The reason this debate has swirled around PA is because Philadelphia, being an extremely blue-collar town, tends to have more sympathetic juries who believe patients who suffer malpractice should be awarded excessively. Kelly Ripa's sister, who broke her ankle and had a series of complications following, had her malpractice case moved to Philly, where she picked up $10 million in mostly "non-economic" damages back in February. That same day, another woman was awarded something like $6 million. It could be more, but those are the numbers I'm remembering off the top of my head. There's no one person to blame. It's the system and how it works. Lawyers push patients to go after malpractice suits because a) they typically charge 30-40% of the final award (this was limited to 25-30% back in 1998 or so), and b) the legal process has too many loopholes and trials get dragged out for months and years, so malpractice insurance companies often settle before it gets too expensive. Doctors then are forced to practice defensive medicine - running as many tests as possible, covering all the ground necessary, in case a malpractice suit arises. If it does, he needs a full file of tests and other documentation to cover his ass. This in turn causes health care costs to rise, making it prohibitively expensive for a good portion of the population. Many go uninsured and do not seek preventative care - so when there is a catastrophic problem, they go to the ER where the hospital has to pick up the tab and is now open to potential malpractice claims (happened in a few Philly hospitals - patients are so sick that doctors are unable to do much, yet they still manage to eek out awards). So who's really at fault? Hard to say. Lawyers seem to be the enemy, but they're just out to make a buck like the rest of us. And people who suffer significant damage that could have been prevented should be entitled to some compensation. Doctors should be thorough in the examining room, but not at the kinds of prices people are seeing on their bills these days.