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 : Mainstream Politics and Economics -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9528)	2/16/2012 9:58:10 PM
From: Sdgla	2 Recommendations Respond to of 85487

No its not nuts Steve. It works and will eliminate 90% of of the frivolous lawsuits currently clogging our system. If the judge determines the suit brought as being groundless then there should be a penalty for those abusing the system. What is nuts is using the "your child" line of thought. If there is true negligence the suit never even gets to court.

To: Steve Lokness who wrote (9528)	2/16/2012 11:41:13 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 85487

I believe that there is a lot of malpractice, which goes unreported. I also believe that a lot of cases are won that should be lost and vice versa. There are frivolous law suits and not so frivolous law suits. Also most people don't realize that Malpractice attorneys take very few of the cases referred to them, which sorts out a lot of the frivolous and not so frivolous cases. In every state in the country the plaintiff has to produce expert witnesses to testify that there was medical malpractice. The costs of prosecuting a plaintiff's malpractice case can easily run into six figures. Most Malpractice attorneys will not take a weak case because of this. Probably the biggest reason for rejection of a case is that the cost of prosecution is out of proportion to the likely verdict. I believe that Texas method of limiting awards has not worked. I suspect that if we have loser pays it will put a family that is already probably financially strapped as a result of the malpractice in a tough situation. In most cases the Plaintiff's attorneys bear the court costs and expert witness fees, but I think loser pays could result in some harsh results. Whether it will reduce costs at all is problematic. Another factor to bear in mind that the playing field is not equal, as the injured person will likely have to pay the Dr.'s legal fees but if the plaintiff wins the Dr.s legal fees will be borne by the insurance company not the Dr. Nearly all doctors carry Medical Mal-practice insurance. Also the Doctors will not tell you that a small percentage of Doctors commit a significant amount of the malpractice. See following link ; news.google.com These doctors were protected by the establishment. It is rare for an incompetent Doctor to lose his/her license. I have personal knowledge of a man who was given 3 tetanus shots over a 3 month period, by the same clinic, and two of the shots were administered by the same clinic. Testimony indicated that each patient's files were filed alphabetically but not in its own file. So the papers of Mary Smith would be filed after Larry Smith. If there were two Mary Smiths the records were just intermingled. These is contrary to the standard of care anywhere is America. The doctor who served on the malpractice panel was appalled, yet these doctors are still practicing and the clinic is still open and they have surely been sued many times since. I can remember two stories in the local press, one of them in the last year, of prominent physicans at reputable hospitals committing hundreds of acts of Malpractice. Where was the supervison by the Hospitals.? How could this be going on without the knowledge of other doctors and health care professionals? How much could we reduce medical malpractice costs if these Doctors lost their license. But the dirty truth is Doctors do not support strict regulation. When have you ever heard them discuss this issue.? There are many factors affecting medical malpractice and the fact is many of us are ill informed of the issues. I would like to see strict enforcement against the medical profession's worst offenders and a change in the rules relating to the burden of proof, to make it more likely that good doctors do not become the victims of unjust verdicts. Off topic: Listened to Kings "I had a dream speech" still makes chills go up my spine. Wish he were still with us. lj