Tort Reform - when you have a claim

[Guest]

This topic has drawn out a lot of emotion, and a lot of ideas concerning what it costs for us all, and how it affects how we do business.

Going on the thought there is no perfect system for claims, and there is always room for improvement, let's have a sharing of ideas on what can be done to make the civil claims process fairer for all. HOWEVER, in doing so, let's look at it from the viewpoint of when we think we have been harmed in some way (we're the plaintiff) and not from the viewpoint of defending a claim. It's easy to put limits on what everyone else does to us as we try to make a living, but are we so restrictive on ourselves?

So, what do we want the "system" to do (e.g., administrative claim, mediation, arbitration, initial litigation and appeal, what's the limit, front money) WHEN its us with the claim? And let's not just limit it to medical malpractice, but the full scope of "harm" (e.g., auto damage, home repair, wrongful death from non-medical services, etc.). And do we want this handled in the federal legal system or the state legal system (big differences here)?

Thanks!

[Guest]

Good subject Steve. I would want to start with whoever wins the claim, pays legal cost on both sides. That would stop most of the frivolous law suits.

On medical there should be some way to limit the tests doctors do only to show in court if necessary that they explored all options. Perhaps an independent medical review board on required testing. Maybe a limit on the amount of an award for certain types of negligence. Was the person incompetent or did they just do what was normal and not go above and beyond that norm.

Good Samaritan laws to protect those trying to help others. Everyone will make mistakes. No one wants to make a mistake that causes damage to someone else. However it does happen. People who have been injured due to someones direct fault need recourse. But some of the awards for that recourse have been ridiculous at best.

Doctors feel the biggest impact today, but we all have to pay for the runaway cost of insurance. How many of us buy higher limits because we are afraid someone will slip and fall in your driveway and sue you for some incredible amount of money. And it just continues to escalate beyond the test of being reasonable.

[Guest]

Good Samaritan laws, interesting. There has been alot of "air time" lately on people not helping other people in need. The media shows the video of a man dying in the street and people just walking by without helping. Another shows someone shooting a person in a store and everybody just ignores it and continues to shop. Why is this happening?
I have my own ideas on this subject. When I was young it was part of the culture to help people and you were praised when you did.
Skip forward about 40 years and now people are taught to not get involved. Why is that?
Is it because you see it on television, movies and news reports that helping people gets you in trouble? YES. We have gone from a help your fellow man to "No good deed goes unpunished" Why....there is only one word that comes to my mind...lawsuits.

[Guest]

the request of the thread, I would like to mention a key factor in the reforming of the tort system.
That is the lawyer component. It is this profession that has been a major catalyst in the ongoing abuse of the system.I suppose one could argue as long as it is within the letter of the law it is not abuse. It is in the same vein as executives being astronomically paid for leading companies with failing financials.

Over the years tort has been a target for reform, with NO success. It has acknowledged that with lawyer dominated law making body it is unlikely to get any tangible results that involve penalizing the lawyer.

However, as mentioned above winner pays all fees, both sides, et al....or a cap per case....or something that takes the vulture/predator nature of the profession out of the equation.

Good luck, the wagons are circled!!!

btk

[Guest]

I am a little hazy on the details but reform took a back seat during the Clinton administration as laws were approved to help the attorney's lobbying efforts. Bush tried to beat back the fires but the flames were too spread and out of control.
You know what happens when there is too much power without checks and balances. Lawyers writing laws and lawyers making money from said laws. Is there any wonder that lawyers have a favorability rating equal to sharks?
"A noted jurist says our laws should be rewritten in simple language so that everybody could understand their meaning.If this were done, a great number of lawyers would have to go to work for a living."

[Guest]

I don't think tort reform would be as big an issue as it is if not for the ridiculously large awards juries have made for loss of life, pain and suffering, or punitive awards against the defendant. That plus the class action suits that lawyers put together, principally as a way to make themselves a whole lot of money.

I think the following couple of rules would solve the problem. I even think that my proposals would be fairly hard to debate--I hope so at least. Here are my ideas...

-- Awards for loss of life should be required to be calculated giving significant weight to the education, occupation and recent income of the decedent. Said a little more coarsely, an award for an uneducated ditch digger should be less than the award for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. In either case, however, the award for loss of life should be limited to a multiple of the decedent's recent annual income or potential to earn an income, maybe 3 to 5X, or an estimate of what that income would have been, based on his eduction and work experience.

-- Awards for pain and suffering should be limited to a fixed amount, somewhere in the range of $1 million maximum seems fair.

-- There shall be no punitive awards permitted.

-- Class action suits shouldn't be prohibited, but the same award limitations listed above should apply to the members of the class. In addition, the amount of the plaintiff's lawyer's fees should be limited to a percentage of the final award, say an amount not to exceed 15%, or 110% of the actual billable hours documented by the plaintiff's lawyers at their standard hourly rates in effect immediately prior to the filing of the suit.

-- In the case of any medical malpractice or personal injury lawsuit, the unsuccessful plaintiff should be required to pay the legal fees and court costs of the defendant.

These simple rules would dramatically reduce the number of medical malpractice suits filed. At the same time, the awards specified for successful plaintiffs seem (to me anyway) fair from the viewpoint of their "value" to society and their proven ability to earn an income.

[Guest]

Sorry VK but they don't work for me.

How about in the loss of life, no more then what the person who lost their life thought their life was worth? Not to exceed what ever they had for life insurance. That way every one assigns their own life value. If no insurance, then not to exceed 50K. And that's more then the government thinks a young soldiers life is worth.

And for injury maybe 50% of that amount.

Class action suits, lawyers could not exceed payments of more then 1 times their annual income for the past 5 year average. And that is better then what your beloved president wants CEO's to earn.

We agree on punitive.

[Guest]

I don't think tort reform would be as big an issue as it is if not for the ridiculously large awards juries have made for loss of life, pain and suffering, or punitive awards against the defendant. That plus the class action suits that lawyers put together, principally as a way to make themselves a whole lot of money.

I think the following couple of rules would solve the problem. I even think that my proposals would be fairly hard to debate--I hope so at least. Here are my ideas...

-- Awards for loss of life should be required to be calculated giving significant weight to the education, occupation and recent income of the decedent. Said a little more coarsely, an award for an uneducated ditch digger should be less than the award for the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. In either case, however, the award for loss of life should be limited to a multiple of the decedent's recent annual income or potential to earn an income, maybe 3 to 5X, or an estimate of what that income would have been, based on his eduction and work experience.

-- Awards for pain and suffering should be limited to a fixed amount, somewhere in the range of $1 million maximum seems fair.

-- There shall be no punitive awards permitted.

-- Class action suits shouldn't be prohibited, but the same award limitations listed above should apply to the members of the class. In addition, the amount of the plaintiff's lawyer's fees should be limited to a percentage of the final award, say an amount not to exceed 15%, or 110% of the actual billable hours documented by the plaintiff's lawyers at their standard hourly rates in effect immediately prior to the filing of the suit.

-- In the case of any medical malpractice or personal injury lawsuit, the unsuccessful plaintiff should be required to pay the legal fees and court costs of the defendant.

These simple rules would dramatically reduce the number of medical malpractice suits filed. At the same time, the awards specified for successful plaintiffs seem (to me anyway) fair from the viewpoint of their "value" to society and their proven ability to earn an income.

I would like to add a couple that I think are fair.

Med Mal cases should be heard and decided by a committee or jury that is truly of one's peers, people in the field that can digest the information and make decisions that are not based on the emotional aspect of the dog and pony show most cases turn into. (The side with the best actors, theatrics, and ability to manipulate people wins now).

Limits on attorney's fees in a settlement or judgement. (Physicians and hospitals fees are strictly limited and controlled: quid pro quo).

Standard guidelines for awards regarding pain and sufferring, future earnings, and other factors that figure into judgements.

Punative damages may not be awarded against a manufacturer or medical product that has been approved by the FDA (unless fraud during the approval process can be proven).

Physicians that follow evidence based medicine and guidelines should be afforded significant protection. This is how medicine is meant to be practiced. This would also result in a significant decrease in the likely billions of dollars being wasted on defensive medicine.

Spend more money and effort on patient saftey and prevention instead of the reactive behavior of lawsuits. This should speak to the crux of the matter.

Make it easier to report errors and look for solutions, people are scared to report anything right now.

Alas most of this will not come to pass. Culturally there is an attitude that whenever there is a negative outcome, somebody should be paying money to someone else. Sometimes these outcomes just happen, and no one is truly at fault, but "talented" attorneys can twist any event into a costly legal morass more easily circumvented by giving up a quick settlement regardless of fault. Additionally, we have more technologies, with resultant higher expectations, making failures seem more outstanding. Couple this with the sense of entitlement that our society seems to have that they "have to get something" to have been treated well (antibiotics for common colds, high tech and high dollar tests out of proportion to symptoms and findings etc..) and the resultant anger if they don't get it, and the whole mess is near impossible to overcome.

[Guest]

So far, no one has put themselves in the position of the plaintiff/claimant. If you were the one who was harmed (regardless of the type of harm), what do you think is the maximum that you should expect, and what's "fair"?

If a person broke your arm "by accident," what's the most that should be?
If you are killed by an "OJ" type, what should your family expect?
If you are crippled at age 40 due to a preventable medical error, what is your "fair expectation" of claim?
If your house is destroyed because the plumber screwed up the gas lines, should the plumber be liable for losses beyond your insurance coverage, and by how much?
If your grandchild chewed on a toy made of a toxic substance, what should the maximum be for that cchild's injuries or death, or for a class-action suit against the parties who sold/made the toy?

Again, it's easy to gore the other guy's ox, especially if we see the issue only through the defendant's eyes. Defendants want caps, and usually plaintiffs want the sun, moon and the stars. As a plaintiff/claimant, what are your proposed reforms? This is where it gets hard - putting constraints on us.

[Guest]

So far, no one has put themselves in the position of the plaintiff/claimant. If you were the one who was harmed (regardless of the type of harm), what do you think is the maximum that you should expect, and what's "fair"?

If a person broke your arm "by accident," what's the most that should be?
If you are killed by an "OJ" type, what should your family expect?
If you are crippled at age 40 due to a preventable medical error, what is your "fair expectation" of claim?
If your house is destroyed because the plumber screwed up the gas lines, should the plumber be liable for losses beyond your insurance coverage, and by how much?
If your grandchild chewed on a toy made of a toxic substance, what should the maximum be for that cchild's injuries or death, or for a class-action suit against the parties who sold/made the toy?

Again, it's easy to gore the other guy's ox, especially if we see the issue only through the defendant's eyes. Defendants want caps, and usually plaintiffs want the sun, moon and the stars. As a plaintiff/claimant, what are your proposed reforms? This is where it gets hard - putting constraints on us.

I would be completely comfortable submitting to things outlined above as a plantiff because they are fair and real, and some are easily extrapolated to the non medical or tort environment.

[Guest]

Recovery for injury claims is outlined in state statutes. As you would expect, the elements of recovery vary by state. The vast majority of these claims are handled in state court versus federal court, and the overwhelming majority of claims are settled between the involved parties and no trial is ever held.

Typically, the non at fault party can recover for incurred expenses (meds, lost of wages, etc) past and future pain and suffering, future loss of income, and disability. There may be more or fewer elements of recovery depending on the statute. The injured party has the burden of proving what damages were sustained.

Wrongful death statues outline the elements of recovery in death cases. They would include loss of society and companionship to certain loved ones, as outlined in the state statute (usually spouse and children) pain and suffering if death is not immediate, future loss of income and other elements varying by state. If an immediate family happens to witness the event, they may be able to recover for wrongful infliction of emotional distress

If you break my arm on a non displaced fracture, not worth a lot of money. If you crush CC Sabathia's pitching arm, good luck with that one.

If a plumber screws up he doesn't get an "offset" due to the fact you had insurance. The plumber is liable for all damages as outlined in the applicable statute. Whatever the insurance company pays, they'll go after the plumber for and if they didn't cover everything, you can pursue him.

To many individual variables involved to try to determine what's "fair" for each party under every conceivable circumstance.

The press always reports the large verdicts because the plaintiff bar makes sure they get some kind of new release. You don't see many headlines stating "Seriously injured man loses case". So while we always hear about the extremes of the legal system, overall, it works OK, not great however.

Class action litigation is a mess and so is venu shopping, joint and several liability and the lack of financial penalties agains the non prevailing party. You can file a frivolous lawsuit and the defendant, without any fault, is faced with excesive defense costs to prove they are without fault. So they dump defense costs as an offer to eliminate the lawsuit. The loser, not the winner, needs to pay defense costs to the prevailing party in all litigation.

If you ever need a real laugh, do some research on the wonderful Florida No Fault statute and you will rapidly see why we are bombarded with never ending ads from the wonderful plaintiff bar.

[Guest]

Good subject Steve. I would want to start with whoever wins the claim, pays legal cost on both sides. That would stop most of the frivolous law suits.

On medical there should be some way to limit the tests doctors do only to show in court if necessary that they explored all options. Perhaps an independent medical review board on required testing. Maybe a limit on the amount of an award for certain types of negligence. Was the person incompetent or did they just do what was normal and not go above and beyond that norm.

Good Samaritan laws to protect those trying to help others. Everyone will make mistakes. No one wants to make a mistake that causes damage to someone else. However it does happen. People who have been injured due to someones direct fault need recourse. But some of the awards for that recourse have been ridiculous at best.

Doctors feel the biggest impact today, but we all have to pay for the runaway cost of insurance. How many of us buy higher limits because we are afraid someone will slip and fall in your driveway and sue you for some incredible amount of money. And it just continues to escalate beyond the test of being reasonable.

Yes sounds good except for the poor guy who is in the right and looses. Then he is really screwed. Sorry ,but think this is a terrible idea.:cus:

[Guest]

So far, no one has put themselves in the position of the plaintiff/claimant....Defendants want caps, and usually plaintiffs want the sun, moon and the stars.

Steve, there's no absolutely correct answer. But I think the general drift of the responses so far is that constraints on awards, pretty significant constraints, are both needed and fair. When I laid down my proposals, I wasn't trying to gore the plaintiff's ox or the trial lawyers. I was trying to set down some limitations that seemed to make common sense. l2ridehd set down some limits even tighter than I proposed. I'm sure he/she thought they were fair and appropriate, as well.

What it boils down to, I think, is that award limitations and some way to address trail lawyer's fees should be important parts of any tort reform considered. I just wish it would be considered. But I'm not holding my breath.

[Guest]

There is something happening in the industry that is making it less profitable to just sue. Medicare is requiring both workers comp and liability claims to fund part of the settlement for the future medical expenses - a medicare set aside. It is not required for small claims - but any claims over $25000 where there is a likelihood of the person being on Medicare or qualifing for Medicare within the next 36 months (due to injury, age, etc.). Before, claimant got the settlement and then could file for his bills to be paid by Medicare in the future - no more until that fund is exhausted and they tell you exactly how much of the settlement must go into that fund.
Mediation has been an excellent tool in Florida to hold costs down under workers compensation. It is required by law before anything actually goes to a work comp hearing in Florida. I would say I settled 90% of my cases through mediation. It can be done without attorneys or with. It is actually easier with attorneys since the claimant feels he has someone on his side. If you look at how the insurance rates have plummeted in Florida for business (workers comp) in the last few years, I think it is certainly a tool to be considered across the board.
I disagree with the thought the winner of the suit pays everyones costs. The winner is often the defense - why should a homeowner's insurance company have to pay for the plaintiff to sue you just because they prevailed. I think that would cause more suits, not less. Many cases are dismissed because they are proved beforehand there is no liability - I would not want to have to fund everyone that wanted to bring an action against someone.
Just my two cents.

[Guest]

There is one aspect of tort actions that has always bewildered and frustrated me. That is "punitive damages." (Should that be "those are punitive damages" even though I call it one aspect? Help, Boomer.) Okay, something happens, someone has damages. They should have those damages remedied. We'll even throw in a bundle for pain and suffering for the plaintiff and lawyer to split. But suppose the court rules that the tort was the result of egregious action/inaction/misaction on the part of the defendant. They want to make sure he gets the point that he is in the wrong and maybe set an example, so the court adds another $25mil in punitive damages.

So, why the hell should that $25mil go to the plaintiff and shyster -- oops -- attorney? They have already been handsomely rewarded in the other remedies ordered. They have no right or claim on this additional award. I'd initially thought the money could go into the community general fund, but I now question whether that might turn the courts into revenue grabbers, kinda high tech speed traps. Then I thought maybe give all punitive fines to charity. I wouldn't mind seeing the money go to the local County Home for the Bewildered or other worthwhile organization, but I realize the inherent danger in trying to select a few out of so many. But rather than go to the plaintiff team, I'd rather see the punitive awards collected, converted to cash, and burned on the courthouse steps.





`

[Guest]

[SIZE="4".........
So, why the hell should that $25mil go to .... .
[/SIZE]
`
When people sue for personal injury of any kind, they have two options - hire the attorney at his/her rate (hourly or fixed), or go "{no money unless you win) contingency fee. Contrary to popular thought, there's a lot of work involved in preparing and conducting a good case. The "standard" for contingency fee arrangements is attorney to receive 30% of recovery if settled, and 40% if it goes to trial. The major difference is if the VA or the Federal Tort Claims Act is involved, and then it's 20% and 25%, respectively. If the matter is a VA disability claim, it gets worse, and the potential for recovery end up involving appellate court followed by agency hearings taking up to several years. So, in all cases, the attorney has invested considerable labor over what can be several years before and if the first dime is paid for services. Not many professions are willing to provide that much "credit" up front and for so long for any reason.

I can agree that "punitive damages" being awarded to the plaintiff (if they are ever received due to downstream appeals and negotiations) seems "jackpot-like." Unfortunately, under the laws of today, the court and the juries can't tailor awards to non-parties of the lawsuit. To do that would take legislation which could - as an example - say that ___% of punitive damage awards go to the plaintiff (who went through all the aggravation of suit), and the remainder go to the general treasury of the state (or fed, if that court is involved) as recompense to society in general. Trying to target punitive damages funds to specific organizations or causes would require more government committees and obvious abuse in deciding who gets what. Does this type of approach seem "fair?" (it does to me)

I am concerned that if attorneys find it unprofitable to take personal injury cases, obtaining quality legal counsel may dry up or disappear entirely, as law firms, just like any other business, seek greener pastures. While Personal injury is the most visible of practice areas, it's only one of approximately 50. If that happens, no matter how meritorious a person's claim may be or how notorious a company's actions are, no one will take the case.

As an example. while there are thousands of attorneys handling personal injury, those willing to take veterans disability claims appeals (and subsequent agency hearings) are few and ffar between, and the reason is that the deck is so stacked against even recovering costs that veterans claims are mainly handled as charity work - at high cost - because of nonprofitability.

As a further example. the American Immigration Lawyers Association (the major attorney group representing aliens) has over 11,000 members, while the National Organization of Veterans Advocates (the major legal group supporting veterans claims) has fewer than 200 attorney members. So, illegal aliens have greater availability to legal help at a ratio of over 50:1 than veterans, and it's due to market conditions created by federal restrictions on attorneys being paid for services. Most who handle veterans claims do so knowing they will never see a dime and will pay all the costs, even when they win the case. Not many can afford to stay in business in that environment.

This isn't to seek praise for attorneys, but recognition that when the government gets into fee-setting and fee-monitoring for litigation, the better litigators will just go into different markets, just like any businessperson. While some will say, "that's a good thing," what veterans with disability claims have learned is that the result is non-attorney "volunteers" trying to do legal battle against the government (loaded with attorneys at all levels), and usually losing.

[Guest]

I can recall reading awhile back that there was a particular county, I want to say it was in Kentucky, where lots of the huge settlements were rendered by local juries. In that county, the private citizen plaintiff prevailed in an inordinate percentage of the suits tried. As I recall the article, plaintiffs lawyers tried very hard to justify why their case could be tried in that county. Then they hired the local trial lawyers, who probably played golf with the judge every week, as "local counsel".

I could have the state wrong, but I'm pretty certain there is such a county somewhere in the southern U.S.

[Guest]

When people sue for personal injury of any kind, they have two options - hire the attorney at his/her rate (hourly or fixed), or go "{no money unless you win) contingency fee. Contrary to popular thought, there's a lot of work involved in preparing and conducting a good case. The "standard" for contingency fee arrangements is attorney to receive 30% of recovery if settled, and 40% if it goes to trial. The major difference is if the VA or the Federal Tort Claims Act is involved, and then it's 20% and 25%, respectively. If the matter is a VA disability claim, it gets worse, and the potential for recovery end up involving appellate court followed by agency hearings taking up to several years. So, in all cases, the attorney has invested considerable labor over what can be several years before and if the first dime is paid for services. Not many professions are willing to provide that much "credit" up front and for so long for any reason.

I can agree that "punitive damages" being awarded to the plaintiff (if they are ever received due to downstream appeals and negotiations) seems "jackpot-like." Unfortunately, under the laws of today, the court and the juries can't tailor awards to non-parties of the lawsuit. To do that would take legislation which could - as an example - say that ___% of punitive damage awards go to the plaintiff (who went through all the aggravation of suit), and the remainder go to the general treasury of the state (or fed, if that court is involved) as recompense to society in general. Trying to target punitive damages funds to specific organizations or causes would require more government committees and obvious abuse in deciding who gets what. Does this type of approach seem "fair?" (it does to me)

I am concerned that if attorneys find it unprofitable to take personal injury cases, obtaining quality legal counsel may dry up or disappear entirely, as law firms, just like any other business, seek greener pastures. While Personal injury is the most visible of practice areas, it's only one of approximately 50. If that happens, no matter how meritorious a person's claim may be or how notorious a company's actions are, no one will take the case.

As an example. while there are thousands of attorneys handling personal injury, those willing to take veterans disability claims appeals (and subsequent agency hearings) are few and ffar between, and the reason is that the deck is so stacked against even recovering costs that veterans claims are mainly handled as charity work - at high cost - because of nonprofitability.

As a further example. the American Immigration Lawyers Association (the major attorney group representing aliens) has over 11,000 members, while the National Organization of Veterans Advocates (the major legal group supporting veterans claims) has fewer than 200 attorney members. So, illegal aliens have greater availability to legal help at a ratio of over 50:1 than veterans, and it's due to market conditions created by federal restrictions on attorneys being paid for services. Most who handle veterans claims do so knowing they will never see a dime and will pay all the costs, even when they win the case. Not many can afford to stay in business in that environment.

This isn't to seek praise for attorneys, but recognition that when the government gets into fee-setting and fee-monitoring for litigation, the better litigators will just go into different markets, just like any businessperson. While some will say, "that's a good thing," what veterans with disability claims have learned is that the result is non-attorney "volunteers" trying to do legal battle against the government (loaded with attorneys at all levels), and usually losing.


Why should they be any different in this respect than physicians? The government has been fee-setting and price controlling physicians for years. This double standard is part of what is so bothersome to many.

[Guest]

Why should they be any different in this respect than physicians? The government has been fee-setting and price controlling physicians for years. This double standard is part of what is so bothersome to many.
No government rate-setting is correct. Physicians do have one advantage - health insurance supplements which pay all or some of the delta between the billed rate and the government-set rate. In attorney situations where the government is the defendant, the court can retroactively set the hourly rate (no supplementing allowed) and disallow numbers of hours and expenses. For a case that can take 2-5 years to resolve and all of the expenses borne by the attorney during that time frame, it doesn't take more than a couple of these to discontinue servicing that clientele.

[Guest]

Punitive damages -I think they should only be awarded when it falls into an egregious category. Insurance companies have to the money to fight a claim to kingdom come if they want. Most lone attorneys with poor claimants do not have the money to front experts, testing, years of litigation with no money coming in. Big tobacco, oil, or pharmacuticals can stonewall something for a very long time - until the plaintiff dies or his attorney gives up. If they knew something (i.e. hazardous dumping that will affect a community of people for years to come, health carriers that fail to provide proven transplants without a good reason, blood banks that know of an exposure but fail to notify, etc) punitive damages (a spanking for not doing what you knew was the right thing) should probably be awarded. They are often not covered by insurance due to it being an intentional act or coverup. It sends a wake up call to the entire industry - you could be next so you better be putting best practices in place.

[Guest]

No government rate-setting is correct. Physicians do have one advantage - health insurance supplements which pay all or some of the delta between the billed rate and the government-set rate. In attorney situations where the government is the defendant, the court can retroactively set the hourly rate (no supplementing allowed) and disallow numbers of hours and expenses. For a case that can take 2-5 years to resolve and all of the expenses borne by the attorney during that time frame, it doesn't take more than a couple of these to discontinue servicing that clientele.

To be very clear, there are MANY instances where supplements will not kick in. In almost every case supplements follow medicaire rules on what is deemed "appropriate" or allowable for charges. Supplements are there to fill the gap on the 1st 20% that Medicare part A and B do not cover..the deductable if you will. It is in fact illegal as a Medicare provider to charge or accept more than Medicare reimburses from a Medicare patient. True price controll.
Additionally, if Medicare deems a (for instance) a hospitalization stay as unneccessary or too lengthy, the supplements will also deny payment based on Medicare guidelines, whether logical and appropriate or not. The "delta" is by and large not included.
And while "no rate setting" is correct it is in fact happening, and why should attorneys be immune? Just as you stated attorneys would flee certain fields if price controlls were put in place, physicians are leaving, or potential physicians are never starting. We are less than a decade away from seeing the full affects of this. You think it's hard to get an appointment with an internist or primary care provider now?? Be prepared, we now have the perfect storm. A dearth of primary care providers (that will worsen) as the baby boomers come of age.
I frankly have little patience for the defense of PI lawyers or regulations on them at this point. It is ludicrous in the face of what medical providers face, and the PI folks are largely responsible. If they are going to bleed the system, let them have the same constraints as those they take advantage of.

[Guest]

To be very clear, there are MANY instances where supplements will not kick in. In almost every case supplements follow medicaire rules on what is deemed "appropriate" or allowable for charges. Supplements are there to fill the gap on the 1st 20% that Medicare part A and B do not cover..the deductable if you will. It is in fact illegal as a Medicare provider to charge or accept more than Medicare reimburses from a Medicare patient. True price controll.
Additionally, if Medicare deems a (for instance) a hospitalization stay as unneccessary or too lengthy, the supplements will also deny payment based on Medicare guidelines, whether logical and appropriate or not. The "delta" is by and large not included.
And while "no rate setting" is correct it is in fact happening, and why should attorneys be immune? Just as you stated attorneys would flee certain fields if price controlls were put in place, physicians are leaving, or potential physicians are never starting. We are less than a decade away from seeing the full affects of this. You think it's hard to get an appointment with an internist or primary care provider now?? Be prepared, we now have the perfect storm. A dearth of primary care providers (that will worsen) as the baby boomers come of age.
I frankly have little patience for the defense of PI lawyers or regulations on them at this point. It is ludicrous in the face of what medical providers face, and the PI folks are largely responsible. If they are going to bleed the system, let them have the same constraints as those they take advantage of.

The PI practitioners won't care. If the practice becomes unprofitable due to government fee-setting despite having to wait 2-5 years for payment of services, then there won't be PI practitioners. They will just go do other things more profitable. The medical profession, various manufacturers and others will jump for joy, because they will now be totally exempt from any consumer oversight, especially since state regulators really don't regulate, and peer review is also essentially worthless. Despite preventable medical errors being the sixth leading cause of death in the US, how many medical practitioners ever have their licenses suspended or revoked? Perhaps if those groups protected the public like they are supposed to, then the public would not look so often to the courts for justice?

The only ones "taking advantage" of anyone is the insurance industry. The premium versus payout ratio keeps increasing in favor of "premium," despite claim payments remaining fairly level over the past six years (see http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/8689.htm ), They see a windfall in premium revenue and top it off with bailout money - what a deal!

[Guest]

The PI practitioners won't care. If the practice becomes unprofitable due to government fee-setting despite having to wait 2-5 years for payment of services, then there won't be PI practitioners. They will just go do other things more profitable. The medical profession, various manufacturers and others will jump for joy, because they will now be totally exempt from any consumer oversight, especially since state regulators really don't regulate, and peer review is also essentially worthless. Despite preventable medical errors being the sixth leading cause of death in the US, how many medical practitioners ever have their licenses suspended or revoked? Perhaps if those groups protected the public like they are supposed to, then the public would not look so often to the courts for justice?

The only ones "taking advantage" of anyone is the insurance industry. The premium versus payout ratio keeps increasing in favor of "premium," despite claim payments remaining fairly level over the past six years (see http://www.justice.org/cps/rde/xchg/justice/hs.xsl/8689.htm ), They see a windfall in premium revenue and top it off with bailout money - what a deal!

Funny how concerned you seem to be that there may be fewer PI lawyers around but little mention of the declining physician numbers, nor recognition of the price control issues physicians face that you seem to fear so much for the PI folks.

And again you are wrong. "the only ones taking advantage of anyone is the insurance industry". Again, were this not so blatantly inaccurate it might induce a chuckle.

You are right about medical errors, and it is a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it. As I stated earlier, placing more effort and resources in prevention is likely to do more to address the problem than the PI folks you so staunchly defend. I don't expect they are all unscrupulous by any stretch, but experience tells me a very significant number are.

I would easily estimate the numbers of suspensions and revocations is in the thousands annually based on my knowledge of many state medical boards actions of which I am aware of and those I have been involved with peripherally. Is the oversight perfect? Of course not, on either end of the spectrum.Hopefully it will continue to improve.

You may defend those that abuse the system all day, and denigrate those of us struggling to not only exist in it but improve it, by condemning all as a group.. As usual, I would encourage you to do a little more in depth research into the intricacies before making innaccurate judgments, statements, or inferences regarding healthcare providers and the issues they deal with (financial, legal, ethical and otherwise). At least being open and willing to learn would be a great start.

[Guest]

Funny how concerned you seem to be that there may be fewer PI lawyers around but little mention of the declining physician numbers, nor recognition of the price control issues physicians face that you seem to fear so much for the PI folks.

And again you are wrong. "the only ones taking advantage of anyone is the insurance industry". Again, were this not so blatantly inaccurate it might induce a chuckle.

You are right about medical errors, and it is a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it. As I stated earlier, placing more effort and resources in prevention is likely to do more to address the problem than the PI folks you so staunchly defend. I don't expect they are all unscrupulous by any stretch, but experience tells me a very significant number are.

I would easily estimate the numbers of suspensions and revocations is in the thousands annually based on my knowledge of many state medical boards actions of which I am aware of and those I have been involved with peripherally. Is the oversight perfect? Of course not, on either end of the spectrum.Hopefully it will continue to improve.

You may defend those that abuse the system all day, and denigrate those of us struggling to not only exist in it but improve it, by condemning all as a group.. As usual, I would encourage you to do a little more in depth research into the intricacies before making innaccurate judgments, statements, or inferences regarding healthcare providers and the issues they deal with (financial, legal, ethical and otherwise). At least being open and willing to learn would be a great start.

Always willing to learn, and am open-minded enough to realize that no profession is comprised solely of saints or sinners.

I would wonder if that "very significant number" of unscrupulous PI attorneys match the number of physicians who subject patients to the inconvenience, discomfort, pain and expense of medical tests which have no purpose other than to provided padded protection for the physician's butt in case one of those "preventable medical errors" occur; or match the number of medical practitioners who make knowing multiple "preventable medical errors" and continue in business. Each profession has its problem children.

As far as the facts are concerned, there always seem to be two types: the ones people want to see, and the ones they don't since they mitigate positions. Whether judgments are inaccurate or not depend on objectivity, and the closer one is personally tied to the matter, the greater the potential for that judgment to be clouded by subjective reasoning.

Why attorneys want to get into the PI business always fascinated me, as the PIers are hated, insulted, joked about, and villified - until someone gets hurt and everyone turns their back on them later. It's one practice area that I've found not worth the aggravation

As far as "staunchly defend," I see it more as balancing the rhetoric. So far, there has been nothing but condemnation of the legal profession while simultaneous sanctification of the poor suffering physician. And as far as preventable medical errors being,"a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it," that's the same song-and-dance given whenever a system refuses to self-correct itself and maintain status quo. Politicians have been doing it for years. Errors/mistakes are noticed, recorded, reviewed, root cause determined, fix formulated and implemented, and results evaluated, and that process works in every other science for failure analysis and correction. When "preventable medical errors" cause fewer deaths than Diabetes and drops one notch to 7th in the "leading causes of deaths in the US," it will be a day of celebration for the public.

There's a lot of education to go around. I've heard a lot about how medical malpractice insurance rates are driving medical professionals into specialties with lower overhead. Yet, the fact that insurance premiums have been rising far out of kilter to claims which have been level for the past six years is treated as insignificant in favor of blaming PI attorneys for everything. Again, the easy target versus who actually is making the money.

Is there concern about rising health care costs? Of course.
Is there effort by everyone which can reduce these costs? Of course.
Will all of the professions "cowboy up" to fix their houses as the first step? We'll see
Is the insurance industry taking a business advantage to all of the hysteria? The numbers speak for themselves.

[Guest]

This country has seen far too many cases of open dishonesty on the part of lawyers with little or no consequences. This particularly applies in class-action lawsuits. Perhaps the best example of this is the silicone breast implant scam. There was no correlation ever shown between these implants and connective tissue disease. Actually, the leading medical experts from Mayo, Johns Hopkins and Harvard went on record saying these implants were safe. There was a crusade by some women to have them banned. The FDA cooperated and ordered them pulled from the market. Most nations around the globe listened to the experts rather than to lawyers and the product remained on the market around the globe. Indeed, now, after the damage is done, the FDA has very quietly reversed its position. However, the lawyers have made quite literally billions of dollars, two companies were driven to bankruptcy and several others significantly damaged, jobs and pensions wiped out, communities destroyed, etc. All this so that the lawyers could make a lot of money and to hell with the damages done.

We are still seeing lawyers sue for tobacco caused illness, even after the 'settlement.' These lawyers stand up with a straight face and lie - "My client did not know that cigarettes could cut short his life." Witnesses are not allowed to perjure themselves, but lawyer’s lying is accepted as a part of ‘representing their client.’ Is there anyone on this board who did not know, many years ago, that smoking kills?

When found out and prosecuted, and that rarely happens, penalties are absurdly lenient. Melvin Weiss of the firm Milberg Weiss got 30 months in a Federal ‘country club’ prison for defrauding the courts in several shareholder administration lawsuits. This was for one case – in which the court determined that he made 9.8 million illegitimately in only one of his many cases. The firm had made billions as the dominant firm in shareholder litigation. His partner in all this, In congressional testimony William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice,’ as Mr. Lerach himself stated, this dishonest practice a clear and present threat to our economy is going unaddressed by Congress.” That is not surprising given that Congress is for the most part made up of lawyers and the bar is the largest contributor to Democrats.

I can go on and on, (lock up Dickie Scruggs on the net) but the problem is reasonably clear:

1. We have for too many lawyers in this country. For most of us the only reason to hire a lawyer is to protect yourself from another lawyer Lawyers are, in academic terms, parasites. They do not add to the net worth of the country, but only facilitate the transfer of wealth from one individual to another, or company-to-company. They produce nothing, they do not provide any essential services and they lay a heavy tax on those of us who do those things.
2. We need to reduce the number of lawyers in his economy. Having accepted the truth that lawyers are economic parasites, we need to reduce the number of them.
a. First, we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers entering our society. This will require closing of every state law school and the revocation of GI bill support for education to become a lawyer.
b. We need to reinvest the monies saved in professions that we need – such as engineering, nursing and education of physicians.
3. We need to minimize the incentives for lying.
a. Law firms may represent clients in one and only one state. Firms trying to represent the entire US from locations such as Mississippi and Wyoming must be eliminated. (See the 10th amendment)
b. Penalties for misrepresentation to the court in a civil suit must be a minimum of ten years and a maximum of life in a high security prison.
c. As others have suggested, loser pays, including the lawyer the law firm and all partners representing the loser, must be made to happen. This must include all assets: including those in the spouse or children’s names. We’ve all seen the ads for law firms saying that they will collect everything including college trust funds. Let us know apply that requirement to attorneys who represent an illegitimate claim.
Is this enough to put the US legal system back on track? I suspect not. As long as firms can advertise, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” This advertisement meets ABA standards – what more need I say. The ABA believes that misrepresenting facts in a civil trial is perfectly fine.

Just my HO

[Guest]

Always willing to learn, and am open-minded enough to realize that no profession is comprised solely of saints or sinners.

I would wonder if that "very significant number" of unscrupulous PI attorneys match the number of physicians who subject patients to the inconvenience, discomfort, pain and expense of medical tests which have no purpose other than to provided padded protection for the physician's butt in case one of those "preventable medical errors" occur; or match the number of medical practitioners who make knowing multiple "preventable medical errors" and continue in business. Each profession has its problem children.

As far as the facts are concerned, there always seem to be two types: the ones people want to see, and the ones they don't since they mitigate positions. Whether judgments are inaccurate or not depend on objectivity, and the closer one is personally tied to the matter, the greater the potential for that judgment to be clouded by subjective reasoning.

Why attorneys want to get into the PI business always fascinated me, as the PIers are hated, insulted, joked about, and villified - until someone gets hurt and everyone turns their back on them later. It's one practice area that I've found not worth the aggravation

As far as "staunchly defend," I see it more as balancing the rhetoric. So far, there has been nothing but condemnation of the legal profession while simultaneous sanctification of the poor suffering physician. And as far as preventable medical errors being,"a multifaceted problem in a complex and high tech system, a little difficult to appreciate when you are not working within it," that's the same song-and-dance given whenever a system refuses to self-correct itself and maintain status quo. Politicians have been doing it for years. Errors/mistakes are noticed, recorded, reviewed, root cause determined, fix formulated and implemented, and results evaluated, and that process works in every other science for failure analysis and correction. When "preventable medical errors" cause fewer deaths than Diabetes and drops one notch to 7th in the "leading causes of deaths in the US," it will be a day of celebration for the public.

There's a lot of education to go around. I've heard a lot about how medical malpractice insurance rates are driving medical professionals into specialties with lower overhead. Yet, the fact that insurance premiums have been rising far out of kilter to claims which have been level for the past six years is treated as insignificant in favor of blaming PI attorneys for everything. Again, the easy target versus who actually is making the money.

Is there concern about rising health care costs? Of course.
Is there effort by everyone which can reduce these costs? Of course.
Will all of the professions "cowboy up" to fix their houses as the first step? We'll see
Is the insurance industry taking a business advantage to all of the hysteria? The numbers speak for themselves.

I really haven't seen you "balance the rhetoric" in this discussion, much less recognize any of the truths with regard to the physician end of the spectrum.
I am dissapointed but no longer suprised that you really have no interest in learning about both sides of the coin, and seem to have an obvious distaste for the physician perspective (from what I have been able to ascertain). I do wish that someday you would take the time to learn some of the real world goings on in the "day of the life" of healthcare providers. You are sadly out of touch and misinformed with regard to many aspects of it, though dissapointingly it doesn't seem to temper your rhetoric in the least. These are not indictments of you, simply observations.
The sad part is that are are a lot of people that operate under the same misguided perceptions and at times misinformation. There is little hope of improvement for the system as a whole as long as the most vocal pontificators are so unwilling to give both sides of the situation and honest even handed look.
In the end the situation will progress, not for the better, and the circle will continue. People such as yourself that seem to see physicians as the enemy and PI folks as the saviours will just have to wait until less and less numbers of dedicated physicians are able or willing to participate in the present and fututure environment before taking pause and realizing there was indeed truth to be learned from the other side of the coin.
Of course the insurance companies have a great deal of "blame" in the present mess of a system we have...they always have. Once again, one more entity you hold up as responsible while somehow defending your PI folks in a staunch or more oblique way.
I think I have done what I started out to do and offered honest, real world, and well informed information to those that wish to see both sides of the subject and actually learn something. It is kind of like any gift, you offer it with good intentions and honest convictions and it may or not be accepted, the offering is there either way. I also wanted to offer balance to misinformation and a counter to not only the rhetoric but to some of the flatly wrong postulations that have graced this and other posts, and I have.
To those of you interested in learning and not perpetuating the same behaviors and stereotypes I encourage you to continue your journey, for the rest of you I wish you well.

[Guest]

This country has seen far too many cases of open dishonesty on the part of lawyers with little or no consequences. This particularly applies in class-action lawsuits. Perhaps the best example of this is the silicone breast implant scam. There was no correlation ever shown between these implants and connective tissue disease. Actually, the leading medical experts from Mayo, Johns Hopkins and Harvard went on record saying these implants were safe. There was a crusade by some women to have them banned. The FDA cooperated and ordered them pulled from the market. Most nations around the globe listened to the experts rather than to lawyers and the product remained on the market around the globe. Indeed, now, after the damage is done, the FDA has very quietly reversed its position. However, the lawyers have made quite literally billions of dollars, two companies were driven to bankruptcy and several others significantly damaged, jobs and pensions wiped out, communities destroyed, etc. All this so that the lawyers could make a lot of money and to hell with the damages done.

We are still seeing lawyers sue for tobacco caused illness, even after the 'settlement.' These lawyers stand up with a straight face and lie - "My client did not know that cigarettes could cut short his life." Witnesses are not allowed to perjure themselves, but lawyer’s lying is accepted as a part of ‘representing their client.’ Is there anyone on this board who did not know, many years ago, that smoking kills?

When found out and prosecuted, and that rarely happens, penalties are absurdly lenient. Melvin Weiss of the firm Milberg Weiss got 30 months in a Federal ‘country club’ prison for defrauding the courts in several shareholder administration lawsuits. This was for one case – in which the court determined that he made 9.8 million illegitimately in only one of his many cases. The firm had made billions as the dominant firm in shareholder litigation. His partner in all this, In congressional testimony William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice,’ as Mr. Lerach himself stated, this dishonest practice a clear and present threat to our economy is going unaddressed by Congress.” That is not surprising given that Congress is for the most part made up of lawyers and the bar is the largest contributor to Democrats.

I can go on and on, (lock up Dickie Scruggs on the net) but the problem is reasonably clear:

1. We have for too many lawyers in this country. For most of us the only reason to hire a lawyer is to protect yourself from another lawyer Lawyers are, in academic terms, parasites. They do not add to the net worth of the country, but only facilitate the transfer of wealth from one individual to another, or company-to-company. They produce nothing, they do not provide any essential services and they lay a heavy tax on those of us who do those things.
2. We need to reduce the number of lawyers in his economy. Having accepted the truth that lawyers are economic parasites, we need to reduce the number of them.
a. First, we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers entering our society. This will require closing of every state law school and the revocation of GI bill support for education to become a lawyer.
b. We need to reinvest the monies saved in professions that we need – such as engineering, nursing and education of physicians.
3. We need to minimize the incentives for lying.
a. Law firms may represent clients in one and only one state. Firms trying to represent the entire US from locations such as Mississippi and Wyoming must be eliminated. (See the 10th amendment)
b. Penalties for misrepresentation to the court in a civil suit must be a minimum of ten years and a maximum of life in a high security prison.
c. As others have suggested, loser pays, including the lawyer the law firm and all partners representing the loser, must be made to happen. This must include all assets: including those in the spouse or children’s names. We’ve all seen the ads for law firms saying that they will collect everything including college trust funds. Let us know apply that requirement to attorneys who represent an illegitimate claim.
Is this enough to put the US legal system back on track? I suspect not. As long as firms can advertise, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” This advertisement meets ABA standards – what more need I say. The ABA believes that misrepresenting facts in a civil trial is perfectly fine.

Just my HO

As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.

The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.

Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.

Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.

Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/081218-01.html ).

Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after.

[Guest]

As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.

The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.

Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.

Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.

Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/081218-01.html ).

Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after.

If that is the case...I would keep on your toes...with this administration in power.:police:

[Guest]

Firing Inspector Generals....Hmmmmmmm

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-kass-21-jun21,0,1177440.column

[Guest]

As one of those you consider "parasites," I hope you never find yourself arrested, sued, harmed, swindled, slandered, the subject of a government investigation or the like.

The last time I checked, it was the plaintiff who claimed the harm, not the lawyer. Blaming the lawyer for the lawsuit is like blaming the gun for shooting a person, or a car for someone driving drunk. Yes, if lawyers weren't there, there would be fewer suits, but you would have houses filled with asbestos, Thalidomide cases covered up, more cars designed like Ford Pintos, Agent Orange and the like under the rug, no Miranda rights, searches without warrants, no civil rights, the government always "right" and a whole lot of other things, only because there would be no one capable of taking on the complaint on behalf of the person.

Its really easy to view the world from one direction, and that's what most people do, as their perspective is the only true one. A good lawyer has to view it from at least four - the client's perspective, the other party's perspective, somewhere in between both, what the law specifically says is or isn't allowed, and possibly a fifth that hasn't been obvious to those subjectively involved. The truth is absolute, but no single perspective ever provides it.

Lawyers do not judge their clients - they advocate the client's position. The ethical rules in every jurisdiction are the same - if a lawyer permits or engages in pejrury, the lawyer becomes an accomplice to fraud upon the court, or worse. Attorney-client privilege forbids an lawyer from disclosing any client's secrets, but does not allow the lawyer to instigate or continue a fraud, perjury or other criminal behavior. I've withdrawn several times from cases - during a hearing - because the client insisted on lying to the court, and the lawyers I know do this routinely. Clients lie, and when caught in it, the good attorney - and there's a lot of them - drop the client.

Are there lawyers who break the law? Sure there are. In the two jurisdictions I'm licensed in, there's a total of over 300,000 bar members, but less than 10% have ever represented a client in court. With numbers that large, even if 99.5% are persons of honor, that still leaves 1,500 to worry about. Is that any different than any other profession? The bad apples always get the publicity. Accusing all lawyers of being another Melvin Weiss is like accusing all physicians of being another Ana Alvarez-Jacinto (see http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls/PressReleases/081218-01.html ).

Hate us lawyers if you want. I'm proud of the profession and the freedoms it protects. Once the lawyers are gone, the freedoms go with them - as everywhere on this planet have found, because the lawyers are the first ones the dictators and despots go after.

With the United States having over 50% of the world’s attorneys the chances of escaping from them is essentially zero if you have any net worth. As for being parasites, that is the economic definition. As I said, lawyers facilitate the transfer of wealth; they create nothing that adds to the GDP.

Most PI attorneys solicite clients – not the other way around. The term ‘ambulance chaser’ came into being because it is an accurate description of many in the PI business. How many ads on television, the backs of phone books, etc that encourage people to sue with phrases such as “no cost to you if we do not collect” do we need to see before we accept the fact that it lawyers, not plaintiffs, who initiate most lawsuits? The last time I checked, no homes were being built in the western world filled with asbestos, Thalidomide had been pulled from the market, Agent Orange is no longer being used, etc. Countries around the world did this because they learned of the dangers and then promptly acted. The difference is that in the United States, these cases were a source of profit for the bar at the expense of the rest of the people. You missed the point where I said we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers, not eliminate the profession.

In your discussion of viewpoints, you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ As I pointed out in several major class action lawsuits, the truth was never sought it was even deliberately avoided - the only thing sought was personal gain at the expense of many.

Lawyers do not advocate the clients in many cases – they advocate their own gain. As for not just being an accomplice to fraud – a huge number of PI attorneys initiate the fraud. See everything I have cited. I applaud you for withdrawing from casers because your client insisted on presenting a lie. Would that all attorneys would do so, but far too many do not.

Freedoms are lost when our government and our courts erode the power of the people. While our revolutionary leaders included lawyers, businessmen and military leaders led the fight. The first lawyer to become President was John Adams. He was also the first President to seek to withdraw freedoms through The Alien and Sedition Acts. The actual protection of our freedom lies with the military. They can act and not just talk.

Consider the outcome of the cases of Ana Alvarez-Jacinto and compare it to Weiss. She was, quite correctly, sentenced to 30 years in prison for committing a fraud amounting to 11 million dollars. Weiss, on the other hand, was sentenced to 30 months for defrauding others of billions. His partner, William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice’. He was speaking not only about the firm, Milberg Weiss, but the entire industry of shareholder lawsuits and the attorneys engaged in them. Once again I ask, if the ABA sees nothing wrong with the ad, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” then how can you assert the honesty of PI attorneys? And what does that say about the bar in general?

[Guest]

With the United States having over 50% of the world’s attorneys the chances of escaping from them is essentially zero if you have any net worth. As for being parasites, that is the economic definition. As I said, lawyers facilitate the transfer of wealth; they create nothing that adds to the GDP.

Most PI attorneys solicite clients – not the other way around. The term ‘ambulance chaser’ came into being because it is an accurate description of many in the PI business. How many ads on television, the backs of phone books, etc that encourage people to sue with phrases such as “no cost to you if we do not collect” do we need to see before we accept the fact that it lawyers, not plaintiffs, who initiate most lawsuits? The last time I checked, no homes were being built in the western world filled with asbestos, Thalidomide had been pulled from the market, Agent Orange is no longer being used, etc. Countries around the world did this because they learned of the dangers and then promptly acted. The difference is that in the United States, these cases were a source of profit for the bar at the expense of the rest of the people. You missed the point where I said we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers, not eliminate the profession.

In your discussion of viewpoints, you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ As I pointed out in several major class action lawsuits, the truth was never sought it was even deliberately avoided - the only thing sought was personal gain at the expense of many.

Lawyers do not advocate the clients in many cases – they advocate their own gain. As for not just being an accomplice to fraud – a huge number of PI attorneys initiate the fraud. See everything I have cited. I applaud you for withdrawing from casers because your client insisted on presenting a lie. Would that all attorneys would do so, but far too many do not.

Freedoms are lost when our government and our courts erode the power of the people. While our revolutionary leaders included lawyers, businessmen and military leaders led the fight. The first lawyer to become President was John Adams. He was also the first President to seek to withdraw freedoms through The Alien and Sedition Acts. The actual protection of our freedom lies with the military. They can act and not just talk.

Consider the outcome of the cases of Ana Alvarez-Jacinto and compare it to Weiss. She was, quite correctly, sentenced to 30 years in prison for committing a fraud amounting to 11 million dollars. Weiss, on the other hand, was sentenced to 30 months for defrauding others of billions. His partner, William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice’. He was speaking not only about the firm, Milberg Weiss, but the entire industry of shareholder lawsuits and the attorneys engaged in them. Once again I ask, if the ABA sees nothing wrong with the ad, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” then how can you assert the honesty of PI attorneys? And what does that say about the bar in general?


Both this post and your previous one are articulate well stated, and more importantly are substanciated by some documentation. No one is saying all lawyers are bad, but we are all well aware of the obscene and ongoing abuse and manipulation of the system, it is the very nature of what they do. To be a member of any profession and to be unable to honestly evaluate the good and bad with equinamity does nothing positive for said profession. Simply a cursory review of advertisements as noted above, or the ramifications in medicine as noted easily shows this is not an isolated problem.

[Guest]

With the United States having over 50% of the world’s attorneys the chances of escaping from them is essentially zero if you have any net worth. As for being parasites, that is the economic definition. As I said, lawyers facilitate the transfer of wealth; they create nothing that adds to the GDP.

Most PI attorneys solicite clients – not the other way around. The term ‘ambulance chaser’ came into being because it is an accurate description of many in the PI business. How many ads on television, the backs of phone books, etc that encourage people to sue with phrases such as “no cost to you if we do not collect” do we need to see before we accept the fact that it lawyers, not plaintiffs, who initiate most lawsuits? The last time I checked, no homes were being built in the western world filled with asbestos, Thalidomide had been pulled from the market, Agent Orange is no longer being used, etc. Countries around the world did this because they learned of the dangers and then promptly acted. The difference is that in the United States, these cases were a source of profit for the bar at the expense of the rest of the people. You missed the point where I said we need to reduce the numbers of lawyers, not eliminate the profession.

In your discussion of viewpoints, you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ As I pointed out in several major class action lawsuits, the truth was never sought it was even deliberately avoided - the only thing sought was personal gain at the expense of many.

Lawyers do not advocate the clients in many cases – they advocate their own gain. As for not just being an accomplice to fraud – a huge number of PI attorneys initiate the fraud. See everything I have cited. I applaud you for withdrawing from casers because your client insisted on presenting a lie. Would that all attorneys would do so, but far too many do not.

Freedoms are lost when our government and our courts erode the power of the people. While our revolutionary leaders included lawyers, businessmen and military leaders led the fight. The first lawyer to become President was John Adams. He was also the first President to seek to withdraw freedoms through The Alien and Sedition Acts. The actual protection of our freedom lies with the military. They can act and not just talk.

Consider the outcome of the cases of Ana Alvarez-Jacinto and compare it to Weiss. She was, quite correctly, sentenced to 30 years in prison for committing a fraud amounting to 11 million dollars. Weiss, on the other hand, was sentenced to 30 months for defrauding others of billions. His partner, William Lerach, pled guilty and further said this systemic dishonesty is an ‘industry practice’. He was speaking not only about the firm, Milberg Weiss, but the entire industry of shareholder lawsuits and the attorneys engaged in them. Once again I ask, if the ABA sees nothing wrong with the ad, “Birth defect, you will collect – no one needs to be at fault. ” then how can you assert the honesty of PI attorneys? And what does that say about the bar in general?

As I said before, in every profession there contains that miniscule - yes, miniscule - percent which cause 90% of the grief the rest of the profession is labeled with.

Whether one case deserved a greater sentence than the other, that's one of the reasons appeals court exist. With some, people are out of money - with others, people die.

In my perfect world, each high school kid would get a full year's worth of law and civics, so they would understand what law means, how their system of government is supposed to operate, the difference between types of crimes, what are the parts of a contract (and the associated responsibilities), and what their civil rights are. If that existed, there would be fewer "dumb laws," fewer criminals and fewer lawsuits due to either (or neither) party fulfilling contractual duties. The level of ignorance regarding law and government (state and federal) is exploited routinely by many in elected and appointed positions, and the reason they get away with that <15% approval rating yet keep getting re-elected is tied to that public ignorance.

The actual protection of our freedom is the reaction of the entire citizenery, and not just the military. Where the military is dominant, coujps are routine and oppression occurs. The Founding Fathers were wise beyond their years in keeping the military as subordinate to civilian authority.

The you failed to add the most important viewpoint in a lawyer’s mind – ‘What’s in it for me?’ remark is so far off base it's tough to give a simple response. If that were true, many of my colleagues, and me included, would never have taken on the cases they have. When you add in all the prosecutors, the civil rights advocates, the public defenders, the judges (most of whom could make a lot more in private practice), those who work at the legal aid societies everywhere, those with the various church groups, the Veterans Pro Bono Consortium, etc., whether full-time or part-time, that's a far different picture than the "ambulance chaser" image.

I must say that I don't agree with the breadth and scope of legal advertising, since most of it is aimed at a population of questionable legal understanding, but then again, I'm not much for all the drug company advertisements, the print ads hawking which type of knee surgery is best, and all the "have all the sex you want with no responsibility" either. I have joked with the PI attorneys I know, saying that I'm surprised they don't advertise on the ceilings of ambulances, so people have something to read while in the stretcher. Yeah, freedom of speech does have its not-so-stellar moments.

Fewer lawyers? The other way around would be better. The more who really know the law (preferably, everyone), the more who may live by it.
.

[Guest]

"Fewer lawyers? The other way around would be better. The more who really know the law (preferably, everyone), the more who may live by it.".

:a20:...doubt that one will find a lot of support.

[Guest]

"Fewer lawyers? The other way around would be better. The more who really know the law (preferably, everyone), the more who may live by it.".

:a20:...doubt that one will find a lot of support.
Then those who remain dumb about the law will always complain about how they are victimized by "the system."

[Guest]

Then those who remain dumb about the law will always complain about how they are victimized by "the system."

Certainly loading up the system with even more attorneys isn't going to change that. Wouldn't be any different than saying lets get more politicians so people know more about government. Just not a realistic solution.

[Guest]

IMHO The whole lawyer issue is a big scam. Small percentage of citizens write laws that only other lawyers understand and then charge large sums of money to interpret said laws.:jester:

[Guest]

Certainly loading up the system with even more attorneys isn't going to change that. Wouldn't be any different than saying lets get more politicians so people know more about government. Just not a realistic solution.
No different than having more people understand the merits of eating right, exercise, regular check-ups, not doing drugs, don't smoke, etc..

There is no question that we have an exceptionally convoluted body of law affecting us all, and every day the various legislatures make it more of a challenge. The public frustration with it all is understandable, but it is the public's law, written by their representatives and signed by their chief executive (state and fed).

It would not surprise me to hear that you have seen patients who present themselves with situations that are now irreversible, but had they applied some common sense, changed their living patterns just a little, and bothered to learn how their bodies worked to some degree, they would not find themselves in a rotten situation.

It's no different with the law. All too often there would be those who thought they knew it all because they considered themselves smart about other things, refused to concede how they did things in any manner because it was inconvenient, and just flat-out were legally wrong. There were times we could fix things, and other times where we couldn't, because things had progressed too far down the bad road.

In my world, the best client was the knowledgeable one who really understood "the system," willing to learn more, and accepted the fact that s/he was just one cog in the societal wheel, and not the drive train. In that regard, in my perfect world, the citizenry would fully understand the laws their representatives have put on the books, so that every legal action wasn't contentious, and they would know which representatives weren't really representing their interests. A nation full of people who really know the law - not just wish it to be what it isn't - which govern their society makes for a nation full of people that don't make dumb legal mistakes which can indeed be fatal in some manner. They make the best clients.

We've had an interesting exchange so far. Whether the medical profession should be exempt from consumer action, or consumers should be restricted in their expectation as to quality of delivered services really doesn't matter to me as a lawyer (non-PI). What that legal standard will be is whatever the law-makers say it will be. The public is free in its legal system to experiment with "it's legal today, illegal tomorrow, but the week after we may change it again." The public is fickle, so if the next legal experiment doesn't deliver the goods, the pendulum usually swings even more extreme in response than what was the original situation.

Will tort reform happen in Florida, or some form of federal intervention occur? Like anything else, our society allows "noble experiments," and to what degree professional exemptions to liability (which really "tort reform" is) shall be allowed remains to be seen. Should the medical profession obtain this legalized level of public trust - which such tort reform is - then the potential for public expectation for better service, fewer "preventable medical errors," and probably some unrealistic, yet-to-be-articulated demands is probable in its quid-pro-quo for tort reform. If this trust is perceived by the public as violated in any way by the medical profession, the repercussions could be brutal - and truly socialized medicine could be the next "pendulum swing." (which I hope never happens!)

[Guest]

In that regard, in my perfect world, the citizenry would fully understand the laws their representatives have put on the books, so that every legal action wasn't contentious, and they would know which representatives weren't really representing their interests. A nation full of people who really know the law - not just wish it to be what it isn't -

Even the lawyers don't know all the laws...so they slit them up and specialize.You can't expect people of one trade to know all there is about other trades. Most lawyers don't know how to be a machinist. Most machinists don't know how to be an astronaut. Lawyers say they get paid for what they know and how to use it. Well, if a lawyer brought his car to a mechanic and asked how much to overhaul his engine and the mechanic said $50,000 dollars?
I know these are extreme situations....but alot of laymen think that way.

[Guest]

No different than having more people understand the merits of eating right, exercise, regular check-ups, not doing drugs, don't smoke, etc..

There is no question that we have an exceptionally convoluted body of law affecting us all, and every day the various legislatures make it more of a challenge. The public frustration with it all is understandable, but it is the public's law, written by their representatives and signed by their chief executive (state and fed).

"It would not surprise me to hear that you have seen patients who present themselves with situations that are now irreversible, but had they applied some common sense, changed their living patterns just a little, and bothered to learn how their bodies worked to some degree, they would not find themselves in a rotten situation."

It's no different with the law. All too often there would be those who thought they knew it all because they considered themselves smart about other things, refused to concede how they did things in any manner because it was inconvenient, and just flat-out were legally wrong. There were times we could fix things, and other times where we couldn't, because things had progressed too far down the bad road.

In my world, the best client was the knowledgeable one who really understood "the system," willing to learn more, and accepted the fact that s/he was just one cog in the societal wheel, and not the drive train. In that regard, in my perfect world, the citizenry would fully understand the laws their representatives have put on the books, so that every legal action wasn't contentious, and they would know which representatives weren't really representing their interests. A nation full of people who really know the law - not just wish it to be what it isn't - which govern their society makes for a nation full of people that don't make dumb legal mistakes which can indeed be fatal in some manner. They make the best clients.

We've had an interesting exchange so far. Whether the medical profession should be exempt from consumer action, or consumers should be restricted in their expectation as to quality of delivered services really doesn't matter to me as a lawyer (non-PI). What that legal standard will be is whatever the law-makers say it will be. The public is free in its legal system to experiment with "it's legal today, illegal tomorrow, but the week after we may change it again." The public is fickle, so if the next legal experiment doesn't deliver the goods, the pendulum usually swings even more extreme in response than what was the original situation.

Will tort reform happen in Florida, or some form of federal intervention occur? Like anything else, our society allows "noble experiments," and to what degree professional exemptions to liability (which really "tort reform" is) shall be allowed remains to be seen. Should the medical profession obtain this legalized level of public trust - which such tort reform is - then the potential for public expectation for better service, fewer "preventable medical errors," and probably some unrealistic, yet-to-be-articulated demands is probable in its quid-pro-quo for tort reform. If this trust is perceived by the public as violated in any way by the medical profession, the repercussions could be brutal - and truly socialized medicine could be the next "pendulum swing." (which I hope never happens!)

"It would not surprise me to hear that you have seen patients who present themselves with situations that are now irreversible, but had they applied some common sense, changed their living patterns just a little, and bothered to learn how their bodies worked to some degree, they would not find themselves in a rotten situation." Not sure how this correlates with your assertion that more attorneys would mean more people in general would be better versed in law as a whole. Your comments seem to relate more to personal responsibility, of which I am all for. Doesn't seem to tie into to the "more attorneys for the greater good" line of thought. Perhaps I missed the point.
"Whether the medical profession should be exempt from consumer action, or consumers should be restricted in their expectation as to quality of delivered services really doesn't matter to me as a lawyer (non-PI). What that legal standard will be is whatever the law-makers say it will be." I'm pretty certain no one in these discussions has advocated that medical professionals be exempt from legal action, nor that consumers be restricted in their expectations of quality care. Frankly, that appears to be misconstruing not only the facts, but the spirit of what has been debated here.

The fact is we do have an incredibly convoluted body of law, and we have those that honor it and those that take advantage of it. PI law has become legalized extortion for the most part. It cost little of nothing to ininitiate a complaint, and small businesses and healthcare professionals and many others spend fortunes defending nuisance and outrageous lawsuits. Thousands of examples abound. Finally scant fractions of every dollar cost in tort cases (22 cents per dollar by some estimates) ever make it into the hands of the plantiff.
Just as we have problems with healthcare, we have a malignant problem with the manipulation of our legal system by those with money and power for those with money and power, and it is obscene. Most people would agree.

[Guest]

Y'all can keep nitpickin' with each other if that's what rocks your boat, but face it, the other guy either cannot or will not see your point, much less concede it. As someone who doesn't really have a direct dog in the fight other than being a taxpayer and potential client/patient, I see the value of shysters as well as quacks. Somebody's going to get the wrong leg amputated or breast removed. That person is going to need someone to defend them against a medical/legal team that wants to award them 40% discounts on their next organ removal and call it even. And just because it's that MD's 10th botched amputation this year or the 14th good boob excised, the medicos would just as soon keep any "investigation" internal. They'll handle their own. Oh, give me a shark trial lawyer --- not John Edwards, but a real shark.

On the other hand -- low hanging fruit first -- you've all seen the commercials: "Had an auto accident, a fall, or any other injury. Call us immediately before you see a doctor. If we don't get you money, you don't pay!!!" barf Without question, the bottom-feeders of the industry, but then someone had to finish at the bottom of the class. But another equally objectionable portion of an otherwise honorable profession is the class-action lawyer. We're gonna sue Chic-lets because they changed their formula for cinnamon and I'm allergic. Somehow, through friendly court rulings and other manipulations, we end up with 100,000 members of the class. We sue Chic-let for $500,000,000, a reasonable sum. Chic-lets knows the case is being tried in Madison Co, Illinois, so they're gonna lose. So they settle for $50mil. The lawyers get their percentage (in cash), then the class members get coupons good toward the purchase of new improved Chic-lets cinnamon, if, of course, they fill out all the right paperwork So who won?




`

[Guest]

Y'all can keep nitpickin' with each other if that's what rocks your boat, but face it, the other guy either cannot or will not see your point, much less concede it. As someone who doesn't really have a direct dog in the fight other than being a taxpayer and potential client/patient, I see the value of shysters as well as quacks. Somebody's going to get the wrong leg amputated or breast removed. That person is going to need someone to defend them against a medical/legal team that wants to award them 40% discounts on their next organ removal and call it even. And just because it's that MD's 10th botched amputation this year or the 14th good boob excised, the medicos would just as soon keep any "investigation" internal. They'll handle their own. Oh, give me a shark trial lawyer --- not John Edwards, but a real shark.

On the other hand -- low hanging fruit first -- you've all seen the commercials: "Had an auto accident, a fall, or any other injury. Call us immediately before you see a doctor. If we don't get you money, you don't pay!!!" barf Without question, the bottom-feeders of the industry, but then someone had to finish at the bottom of the class. But another equally objectionable portion of an otherwise honorable profession is the class-action lawyer. We're gonna sue Chic-lets because they changed their formula for cinnamon and I'm allergic. Somehow, through friendly court rulings and other manipulations, we end up with 100,000 members of the class. We sue Chic-let for $500,000,000, a reasonable sum. Chic-lets knows the case is being tried in Madison Co, Illinois, so they're gonna lose. So they settle for $50mil. The lawyers get their percentage (in cash), then the class members get coupons good toward the purchase of new improved Chic-lets cinnamon, if, of course, they fill out all the right paperwork So who won?




`

Not about nitpikin or getting anyone to concede. It IS about giving accurate information and real world experience to people that care to read and become informed, just making sure the other side of the coin gets equal time. The amount of misconception is so great that it is easier to just duck one's head and let it ride. I prefer not to do that. I think we all have a duty to share honest, accurate and real information, and on a higher level an obligation to learn from those that share with us.
You do make good points on both ends of the spectrum, but oblique innaccuracies are still there. While there has been in the past a well known protection of physicians by physicians, give our legal bretren their due. They are actually quite well known (with a little research) for their self
protection in the "self policing" spectrum. The pendulum does indeed swing both ways, let's just be sure everyone is aware in the midst of all the rhetoric.

[Guest]

Here is a great reason why class action reform is necessary.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-kfc-suit19-2009jun19,0,5217536.story

Not sure what veteran disability claims have to do with "tort reform", they aren't tort claims, but of course they get thrown into the conversation by the original poster. I also don't see the relevance of the fact 10% of the bar in steve z's membership hasn't been in court. It's not a relevant statistic unless you only analyze tort claims. Criminal lawyers and public defenders are in court all the time, but they don't handle tort claims. Very few tort claims are ever tried to conclusion. So what percentage of ABA members handling tort claims actually get to trial, not just "in court" whatever that means. For a little while I thought this thread dealt with only tort claims.

The originator of the thread asks, "will there be tort reform in Florida?" So why do we need reform in Florida? What specific Florida legal issues warrant reform?

Steve z, did you actually handle "tort" claims and if so, what percentage of your business was devoted to them, or where you handling first party disability claims, which are not tort claims and not a fair comparison.

Keedy, thanks again for your great insight into another issue, lawyers can't be mehcnics really cleard up a lot!

[Guest]

Keedy, thanks again for your great insight into another issue, lawyers can't be mehcnics really cleard up a lot!
Thanks...I'll remember that!!!!!
107 years old and still struggling with your spelling : )

[Guest]

Here is a great reason why class action reform is necessary.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-kfc-suit19-2009jun19,0,5217536.story...

The originator of the thread asks, "will there be tort reform in Florida?" So why do we need reform in Florida? What specific Florida legal issues warrant reform?

Steve z, did you actually handle "tort" claims and if so, what percentage of your business was devoted to them, or where you handling first party disability claims, which are not tort claims and not a fair comparison.
...
As the originator of this thread, just wanted to see what people expected (and what they thought they should recover) when they were the plaintiff in a tort case. There's been a lot of publicity regarding what various defendant groups expect, but there are two sides to a matter, and not much is ever heard from the plaintiff side.

Never took a personal injury case, but referred them (no referral fee taken) to certain folk I respected. My world was mainly immigration, homeland security and law enforcement issues, and contracts. Did Veterans Claims no-fee (where the deck is really stacked against the veteran).

Am not sure about the "fair comparison" comment. Depends on the viewpoint, I guess. I'm not a fan of any industry or government being able to dictate to the "little guy" what's 'fair' and what isn't.

Do people sue for silly stuff? All the time, and those who make the silly complaint and those who advocate the case strictly to extract money when no harm is done should have their personal corner of Purgatory with appropriate discomfort. - Do people do harm solely to make money or to cover up past harm? What do you think, and how much should they be limited/protected from answering for their actions?

Is Florida a candidate for "tort reform?" If the various state regulatory agencies and the industries themselves fail the public, then the legislature will eventually come up with something that probably won't please anybody.