Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (194522)	7/15/2004 8:17:02 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573647

You didn't go back far enough. The original argument was between Joe and John. Joe was saying that the jury system aka as the little guy was unfairly going after MDs and finding for the plaintiffs. The courts and the just system are the methods. Joe argued that the jury system might not deal with malpractice cases well but he didn't say the jury system was going after the MDs. The plaintiffs and their lawyers are going after the MDs. They use the courts and the juries to do so. Yes, and that's why he criticized the jury system and questioned whether it should be allowed to continue. What is wrong with you? Do you intentionally do this $h*t just to pick a fight? After all, you can't get rid of the plaintiffs or their attorneys or the judge. If you did, you couldn't have a court case. Beyond that, I think there is little wrong with the system. There are incompetent MDs just like in any other profession; and when they screw up they endanger someone's life. There are incompetent MDs but not only incompetent or unprofessional MDs get sued. Any bad result can result in a lawsuit. Every time they operate or do any other risky procedure they endanger soneone's life. Death or injury should not automatically equal good grounds for a lawsuit. So are you suggesting that if people suspect malpractice but aren't sure, they shouldn't be allowed to sue? I also don't think that someone with some distant connection to the case and probably 1% of the blame should be found liable for 100% of the payout just because they have deep pockets. I think that anyone sued should be the person or group or organization that is primarily at fault or at least contributed signifigantly to the problem. Please elaborate........whose the 1%? I think this change in PA is a good thing - "...Legislation seeking to reform Pa.’s joint and several liability doctrine has been around for decades, but has never been signed into law until now. Under the legal concept of joint and several liability, each defendant in a lawsuit—even those with minimal or partial legal responsibility—was held financially liable for the full amount of a damage award if other defendants were bankrupt, failed to carry insurance or had their insurance coverage limits tapped by the award. In a case with more than one defendant under the new law, defendants who are found by a judge or jury to be less than 60 percent liable would only pay their attributed share of the overall liability, while those over 60 percent would be exposed to the full amount, as before..." physiciansnews.com The change in the law might not be perfect. The link above discusses some reasons why some people don't like it. But it is a change in the right direction. I can't comment at this point......I'd have to look it over more closely. ted