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 : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: energyplay who wrote (21099)	8/13/2004 3:35:10 AM
From: Libbyt	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23153

...That's part of the reason for the huge verdict. Without reading through all of the opinions of the various medical expert witnesses involved, it would be impossible to form a rational opinion whether or not malpractice occurred. Sometimes a huge verdict can be awarded to a family based on sympathy for the condition of a child, and it doesn't always correlate to the "facts" of the case. IMO many people feel some of the awards given in a trial are excessive....especially when a large percentage of the money goes to the trial lawyer. It would be nice if medical malpractice trials were always settled on the basis of the facts in the case. Often it seems to have more to do with the ability of the attorneys involved in the case, and the ability of the medical expert witnesses to relate to the jury and "educate" the jury on the "standard of care" issues of the case.