Main | The Insurance Cartel Lies To The Florida Legislature »

Comments

Marlene

I filed a lawsuit against Olin corp for religious harassment and retaliation for filing the complaint with the eeoc. The eeoc investigated the claim and issued a determination in my favor that there was"overwhelming evidence that I had indeed been religiously harassed by my supervisor and retaliated against for reporting the harassment.
The judge put a time constraint on the evidence to support my claim regardless that a recent court decision set presidence to allow such evidence into the courts if for nothing but to prove pattern of the harassment.
He also barred all my doctors' from testifying and some witnesses.
In order to appeal these restrictions I had to first go through the trial and then appeal to the appelate court. This judge then turned around and socked me with attorney fees, etc. in the amount of $100,000.00!!! for bringing a friviolous lawsuit to court.
Who was bought off here? With judges like this who needs tort reform? Corruption at the highest level!!!
The language this judge used against me in his determination has put a barrier in even relieving this $100,000.00 judgement through bankruptcy.
My advise is to avoid Judge David Herndon and request a different judge who is not corrupt.

Chris

I lost my husband 6 1/2 years ago. After 5 long, sad insufferable days at a shock trama hospital, he finally died of massive injuries, from an on-the-job accident that never should have happened. Had this huge corporation inplaced safety features, and not allowed him near something that was ready to blow, he'd be here right now, and I'd not here writing this.

And what does the state my late husband and I were born in, and loved (at one time) do to us (I say us because when they treat me horribly, they might as well dig him up and tread on him as well), this huge law firm protecting the big corp and out of state insurance company plays a double trick on my ex-uneducated laywers - they place us on a reconstructive bankrupcty life out of state, while working overtime to past a better contributory negligence law.

Now, I'm told no one will care if I write about this. News, media, whatever - I'll be "old news after 2 weeks time." And they want to settle, but no mention of an amount, rather they used mediation which was utilized only to make my lawyer and me think we're not worthy of winning anything and now I'm told that they "want to get this over with before xmas," as I watch them offer a sinfully sad amount to his son. If they're innocent, why offer anything to him?

But me... no, I represent my late husband. The one that's lost in this sad shuffle. I will say this publically, if some "one" does not show me true care and compassion for my poor husband and all the suffering he, and yes I have been through, I will continue to write about it till it makes the bookshelves, fearlessly.

There's more to it. But hopefully you'll understand what I'm trying to say.

It's not the plaintiff's lawyer that's greedy, nor the plaintiff. It's big corporations/businesses and their circle of high ranking friends from insurance companies, legislatures/politicians, and yes, even their own law firm members that have seats in local appeal courts.

Talk about "thinking" they have it all wrapped up, and I've yet to ask for a dime.

One very sad widow on the East Coast that refuses to give up.

Maureen Allen

Was impressed with this website. Will direct my corporations and bankruptcies writing instructor to this website.

Dave G.

I love this site. Most of my opinions are already formed, well supported, and sometimes, although rarely change drastically. The case of the McDonalds coffee lady, however, is one time when my opinion is completely changed. Where before I was quick to dismiss her as clumsy and whining about hot coffee causing her minor discomfort, and thinking this was all a frivilous lawsuit, I was wrong. What my media sources failed to mention was this was an ongoing problem, the severity of her burns, and a few other facts I learned form this site. Outstanding job explaining all of this to the world!

Brenda

Are you people serious? If you spill coffee on yourself, you spill coffee on yourself. If you're dumb enough to put your RV in Cruise and go to the back and expect it to keep to the road, you're the one to blame. These lawsuits need to stop before people are afraid to go outside for fear of getting sued for running into someone and causing them to bruise their finger. It's ridiculous. People are way too lazy and greedy and should be turned down the moment they bring up cases like the ones above. What happened to people's morality? I'm extremely disappointed.

Melanie

I was a legal assistant in a personal injury law firm for four years. While there, I saw son sue mother, brother sue brother, co-worker sue co-worker.

I remember cases like a man who sued his landlord because he said part of the bathroom ceiling collapsed on him while he was taking a shower. But his son testifies that he heard a loud crash and when he went into the bathroom he found his father on the floor, fully dressed. How can you be fully dressed if you are taking a shower? The man was obviously lying in order to get a settlement from the landlord.

A son sued his mother-in-law because he slipped on her ice covered steps. Stupid, it’s you own fault for walking on steps covered in ice!

The very fact that attorney fees and expert witness fees are so expensive is why many insurance companies, instead of fighting frivolous lawsuits, simply settle. IT IS CHEAPER TO SETTLE THAN TO PAY WHAT IT COSTS TO FIGHT A FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT IN COURT. THAT IS WHY SETTLEMENTS ARE SO COMMON. Not because of any of the so called “checks and balances” you talk about. Insurance companies pay off frivolous lawsuits, and pass the cost off onto taxpayers through increased premiums. People hear about someone winning a huge amount of money in a settlement and believe that they can sue too, for any ridiculous reason, thus the problem perpetuates itself.

I would see injured clients come into the office, acting as if they had won the lotto, because they knew they were going to receive a big settlement. Even if the lawyer did get his cut, an attorney once told me that they always start the claims at $1,000,000, since anything less than that would look suspicious to a judge. And even if the attorney took half, (1/3 for attorney fees, plus court expenses), $50,000 is still a lot of money to the average human being who doesn’t even make that much money in an entire year. Even receiving a settlement of $6,000 is a nice hunk of change for some people.

On the other side of the spectrum, I knew of a man, whose hand was permanently damaged while on the job. His supervisor had ordered to him to do tie down a cargo bin into a flatbed with a strap. He did not normally do this, since he was a driver and it was not part of his job to secure cargo. The strap flew off the cargo bin and the buckle part caught his hand, injuring it to the point where he can not use it. However, since he could not prove that the cause of his injury was the strap, he could not sue the manufacturer of the strap. He could not sue his job for lost wages since he could not prove it was his job’s fault that he was injured. However, the doctors have told him he will never be able to use that hand again.

I was so sickened by seeing these kinds of law suits every day I finally had to quit my job as a legal assistant.

The whole system is screwed up. I do not think putting on a cap in jury verdicts would help, because some people are genuinely injured and deserve the money. However, you also have people who abuse the system and get away with it, and that is how the system fails.

Ben Glass

Hey, this is a terrific website. Those who support tort reform can go to our site, www.tort-reform.com and get a form they can use with their doctors. Go ahead and sign up if you all think tort-reform is such a great idea. Read the form carefully before signing!

Lee

Estimates are that 48,000 to 96,000 people are killed every year through medical negligence in the United States. That's killed, not merely maimed or injured.

Any discussion of tort reform should include suggestions for reducing the malpractice! Perhaps a review panel of doctors, lawyers and victims who have the authority to pull a doctor's license.

I have seen suits that are "built up", but in 12 years of defending personal injury cases, I have seen maybe one "frivolous" lawsuit. As you state, lawyers just aren't willing to take them. Plus, in my state, there are no frivolous medical malpractice suits. The barriers are too high for the plaintiffs.

Keep up the good work.

Frank

The people paying for this website and advertising campaign are only interested in profits and money. Any lawyer can build up their case with hack expert witnesses who will say anything for money. Any lawyer with experience knows dozens of expert witnesses, and there are many Lawyer Resources which will find the best witnesses for any kind of case. The Tort System is a whole lot of Fraud. Lawyers routinely rehearse the testimony of the witnesses, and malingering is encouraged. Nobody makes any money if the victim gets better.

Justinian Lane

First off, the "people" paying for this website is one college student - I'm not affiliated with, or working for a lawyer. I've also yet to receive one cent in revenue, let alone profit from this web site.

Second, the comments you make about lawyers apply equally to defense lawyers. In fact, defense lawyers usually end up hiring the "best" expert witnesses because their clients can pay for them.

And finally, you obviously have no idea how personal injury lawsuits work: You claim malingering is encouraged. Lawyers don't file lawsuits until the injuer party gets better. Otherwise, there wouldn't be a concrete figure for economic damages, and there wouldn't an appropriate frame of reference for noneconomic damages.

It's usually - ok, always - defendants that want to draw out a lawsuit. After all, the "greedy plaintiff" wants to get his or her money asap.

RC

[note i am not a doctor or lawyer] Tort reform is not a scam, and cannot be dismissed as a such; it is an issue that involves a variety of situations. I'd like to put into perspective a few issues regarding medical malpractice. Doctors all over the country have seen the rates for medical malpractice insurance skyrocket. At first glance this does not seem like an issue that is worth sympathy. But it has important repercussions, as physicians are being forced to relocate and it is driving away the the best and the brightest from the the field. Especially for the vast numbers of doctors that provide care for the indigent. Often 50% of a physicians patients do not have insurance, especially in the poorer states of the south.

When a doc is found to have been "negligent" there are two rewards, economic and non-economic. The economic rewards are fair, they are calculated by past and future lost wages, etc. and are often very high. But the non-economic damages are completely arbitrary, they consist of the amount equal to the "pain and suffering" of the plaintiff. This is what the reformers want to be capped, generally at $250,000. Caps of this nature are already in place in many states but they are to protect public institutions for the good of the public. However most surgeons that work in a public hospital are under a private practice, and the consensus in the medical community is that they should apply to them as well. (joint and several liability is often used to drag private doctors into suits against public hospitals) This would remove uncertainty and help keep insurance costs down as they would be better able to approximate future law suits.

I'd like to give a few insights into what a malpractice suit is like from a doctors perspective. The "expert witnesses" are always from out of state, and are paid very well. They are not subject to local peer review and thus are inclined to present the viewpoint that favors the plaintiff. Lawyers are very skilled at what they do and the system works greatly to their benefit. A general discourse goes something like this, "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is a civil case. We are not saying that Dr. Smith is guilty of a crime, but rather feel that the plaintiff, deserves compensation for his hardships. This doctor has malpractice insurance for situations just like this, he will not lose a dime, but will go back to work Monday morning. But the plaintiff will not." Evidence of this is seen in the fact that the highest number of malpractice suits are against ob/gyn. Childbirth can be very emotional and is very effective in garnering the jurors sympathies. Oftentimes the doctor is said to have birthed the baby too early or too late, etc. And the experts can be found on both sides of the fence. But the jurors will always side with the child that has a birth defect, even if the doctor follow all standard procedures. Obstetrician/Gynecologists have the highest med malpractice rates because lawsuits are so easy to win and lawyers have such an emotional advantage. The argument that malpractice suits are for the good of the public and increase the quality of health care is not valid. Most cases of obvious negligence are settled out of court and never go to trial. The cases that do go to trial are not beneficial to the public good, medicine is not an exact science and so these cases generally could be argued either way by the medical community and involve lots of what-ifs. However the system is greatly weighted against the medical community.

I think that corporate tort reform is very different than medical malpractice tort reform. Doctors do not withhold information like tobacco companies and are completely different than a corporation, they never involve class action. They simply want to practice medicine and it is amazing how difficult that is becoming. I think the public has a misconception on how wealthy doctors really are. The average general surgeon makes less than a plumber per hour. Medicare and Medicaid barely cover administrative costs, the added burden of malpractice insurance that is 40% of what a doctor makes per year is not fair and not in the interest of the public Our country's physicians, do not deserve to be treated so poorly by the courts.

craig

The one thing that proponents of tort reform refuse to look at is fact. Reading some of these comments left me baffled. It is amazing how poeple can be so passionate about something like tort reform and not even know the facts. Frankly, they do not have a single clue as to what they are talking about. Brenda lets talk about your comments. You speak of morality and laziness. How ethical or "moral" is it to deny an American citizen's Constitutional right to trial by jury? How ethical, and lazy for that matter, is knowingly giving a person a cup of scalding hot coffee that is not humanly possible to consume without 3rd degree burn and doing nothing about it? Coffee so hot that it mutilates the flesh causing it to stick to your clothes so that it peels off when the clothing is removed? RC, have you looked at one statistic regarding Doc's premium's? In States where strict caps have been enforced on non-economic damages, doctor's insurance premiums instead of going down, go up, i.e. Texas.

Seth

The bottom line is that it is impossible to put a price on a human life. To even think that money can replace what a child, a wife, or husband loses is a very sad comment on our society. The people who push for tort reform represent a side of this country that is becoming stronger and more frightening everyday. A group that tries to quantify everything in dollars and cents. Also I would venture to guess that not one of them has ever had a family member lost in a neglectful act.
This is not an issue of right and wrong. Tort reform is simply wrong. It is an issue of money. I don't know of any person that would trade their wife, husband or their children for any amount of money. The money that is given to these people in these lawsuits is given in order to help the family cope with the situation and to punish those responsible. It is not viewed as a big payday worthy of the loss endured by the family.
Insurance companies are not your friends. This goes to any doctors out their too. Your malpractice insurance is not your friend. They feed you with lies of runaway juries and frivolous lawsuits in order to raise you premiums. There are many procedures that stop this from happening. From appeals to attorney fee awards. A lawyer does not make money with frivolous lawsuits. Insurance companies thrive on your fear of the worst happening and when it does not wanting to help. They are powered by one thing and that is money, to think that they will stop raising premiums ever is ridiculous.

Maggie

Lets say I was cooking and on accident I knock the hot pan off the stove and the hot oil burns my foot pretty bad. So now I decide I am going to sue. So now heres my problem do i sue the stove maker because it caused the oil to get hot, or do I sue the maker of the pan because I was able to knock it off. I know Ill sue both even thought I have been cooking 30 something years and know that hot oil will burn me just like coffie will. But yet out of my own stupitiy and knowing it was hot I still can blame someone else for it and make money at the same time. What this boils down to that people are no longer willing to stand up and take the blame and admitte they were at fault. The only thing i see missing in this law suits is common sence

David Tompkins

1) Lawyers are not allowed in any jurisdiction to argue to the jury that a doctor has malpractice insurance. Rather, the Doctor gets to complain that he will go bankrupt if the award is large.

2) To all those that do not trust juries to adequately evaluate what "pain and suffering" is worth, why do we allow the SAME JURORS to determine who lives and who dies in criminal cases involving the death penalty. These same jurors are capable of putting a man or woman to death, to condemn a person after hearing the facts, but they cannot determine how much a person killed at a negligent doctor's hand is worth? Our county was founded on the jury system (civil and criminal) as a bedrock of liberty (we trust our freedom to our neighbors not to the government.)

3) The litigation explosion everyone refers to is an explosion of inter-corporate lawsuits (Kellogs suing Texaco over the use of a Tiger logo, sheezz...) The number of personal injury lawsuits has remained relatively stable over the years.

4) Would Vioxx have been pulled but for the threat of litigation? The answer is absolutely not. This corporate entity lied to regulators and hid faulty data to get the heavily hyped drug to the masses. Regulators cannot handle these matters, they must be addressed directly between victims and the corporations.

James M. Ryan

I found this site to be very informative. I did not know as much about tort law as I thought and am rethinking my attitudes about tort reform. I am a retired physician.

However, I am still a bit cynical about the tort/contingency fee system not because I am a retired physician but because I was a plaintiff in a personal injury suit.

First, as a bit of background, while I was working full time for the VA Hospital in Albany, NY, I had a problem with which to deal which affected my status as a physician. I consulted an attorney for advice. He gave me advice and charged me. I had more problems a couple of years later and again consulted this attorney. I told him I would write up my situation, bring it to his office for his review and asked him to get back to me. He agreed to do so, with the understanding he would charge me for his services. After I left my write up at his office, he never got back to me.

In late November of 2000, my wife and I were involved in a violent rear end collision. We were stopped at an intersection signalling to turn left. In back of us was some 17 year old who thought she could speed and talk on a cell phone at the same time. She kept speeding and talking on her cell phone until she rammed the rear of my van. I suffered a head injury which resulted in 3 major surgical procedures on my head, a post traumatic seizure disorder, permanent post traumatic cognitive and motor defecits. The kid inflicted a lot of mayhem on my life and on my wife's life the cost of which we could not cover. We decided to file suit and looked for an attorney to represent us. Considering the circumstances, I believe that any attorney in the Albany NY area would have believed the chances of recovery were excellent.

The attorney whom I had earlier consulted called me and offered to represent me. Basically, when I had become a plaintiff in an easily winnable personal injury lawsuit, when whoever I retained to represent me had an excellent chance of collecting a big contingency fee, I became much more desirable to him as a client. I turned down his offer of representation.

I retained another attorney, a partner in one of the more prestigious law firms in the Albany NY area, on a contingency fee basis. When we reached the deposition phase, my attorney called me and advised me to agree to a request by the Defense attorneys, to postpone depositions indefinitely. He said, the defense attorneys admitted liability and were ready to settle. Before making a settlement offer, they wanted to review my medical record and satisfy themselves that my injury was due to the accident. They wanted to save their clients the cost and hassle of the depositions. My attorney assured me there would be a settlement offer within a few weeks.

Four weeks later, after we had heard nothing from my attorney, I called his office. I was told he had not heard from the defense attorneys. For the subsequent four weeks, I made repeated calls to my attorney who in turn said he had made calls to the defense attorneys which had not been returned. To get the case going again, my wife and I had to very forcefully insist that the depositions be rescheduled. My attorney kept advising us to wait for a settlement offer. I learned subsequently that the defense attorneys had no intention at the time of making a meaningful settlement offer.

After my wife and I were deposed, I received a letter from the senior partner in the firm. He said he would be taking over my case, once all depositions were taken. Shortly thereafter there was a notice in the Albany Times Union that my original attorney was leaving the firm, along with two other attorneys, to set up their own firm.

My opinion of what happened is this. When my original attorney decided to go on his own, the senior partner told him he would not be taking my case to his new firm. My original attorney decided, if he was not going to collect the 6 figure contingency fee for his firm, he was not going to devote much time to his clients, my wife and me. He put the case on the back burner. He hung my wife and me out to dry.

The senior partner did represent us effectively. Defense attorneys settled the case rather than defend it and we recovered a significant award. But, I now wonder just how much trial lawyers really care about a client's injuries. My attorneys seemed to care mainly about how much my injuries would profit their law firms.

Trial Attorney

I am proud to be a trial attorney. I have read the comments on this board and have mixed feelings. I am completely opposed to tort reform efforts, but at the same time, disappointed by some of the comments posted concerning people's personal experience with other trial lawyers and the tort system.

I oppose tort reform because it is bad for families. The only one that benefits from tort reform is big business and insurance companies. Not one aspect of tort reform is good for families. Simply because people have had a bad experience with the tort system does not mean the whole system needs overhauled. Overall, the system works. There are people who try to take advantage of it. I want nothing to do with those people, whether they are lawyers or fraudulent claimaints. Those people make it difficult for me to get my clients fair compensation when they are legitimately entitled to receive it.

However, tort reformers want to throw out the baby with the bath water. That's not the answer. There is no way to enact wide spread, pro-business and pro-insurance legislation without hurting families that have been legitimately devestated by someone else's neglect.

Caps on damages are not the answer. I can say from my years in practice that I have never represented a client that got paid too much. The opposite is normally the case. All of my clients would willingly give back the money they received in settlement if the tragedy that caused them to receive the settlement could be undone. Unfortunately, those stories are apparently not press worthy. You only here about the McDonald's coffee cases of the world and you only hear a very distorted view of what really happened in those cases.

In my view, the cost one family has to pay for falling through the cracks of tort reform and being left in the cold for the rest of their life is not worth any alleged benefit that tort reform would bring. I see this very similar to the criminal system. Though I am a trial attorney, I have very conservative views of the criminal justice system. I believe those who commit crimes should be punished to the fullest extent of the law and those deserving of death, should receive that as a sentence. However, when push comes to shove, I would rather see a guilty person set free than an innocent person put to death. The same is true of the civil justice system. The system has numerous safeguards to guard against frivolous claims. Despite those, some may still get compensated. However, there is no way to weed out the frivolous claims by simply enacting laws that apply across the board. The lawyers, judges and juries have an obligation to weed them out. I believe that generally happens.

For the person that said lawyers encourage malingering, I would say you need to turn those lawyers in to their Bar Association. Lawyers have an obligation and duty to be candid with the court. I always encourage my clients to get back to work as soon as they possibly can because if they don't, the jury will hold that against them. Despite what some might have you think, juries are very critical of personal injury plaintiffs. If they suspect the plaintiff is trying to pull one over on them, they send them home with nothing, as they should. Additionallly, doctors are very keen at identifying malingerers. Remember, in every personal injury case that is filed, the defense has a doctor examine that person and testify. Those doctors have no reservations about telling the jury if they suspect malingering. From what I have seen over the years, if a doctor credibly tells the jury a person is malingering, the jury gives that person nothing, not even their medical expenses.

I would like to address a couple of other points made on here. One point is that trial attorneys always hire out of state experts in med mal cases because they are willing to say anything. I disagree. Every attorney I know that practices med mal makes every effort they can to find a local doctor to testify in their case. However, the truth is that you cannot get a doctor in the same state to testify because of either an unwritten code of ethics that prevent doctors within the same community from testifying that one of their colleagues was negligent or you have a situation where all of the doctors in the state are insured by the same malpractice carrier, which strongly discourages, if not prohibits, the doctors it insures from testifying against another doctor that is insured by the same med mal carrier.

The next point I would like to make is that I am sickened every time I hear pro tort reformers repeat lies that they have been fed. If I were a tort reform proponent and found out that all of the horror stories I had heard about that caused me to feel so strongly were false, I would be angry. I say this because of the reference above about the Winnegago case where the guy sued because he set the cruise control and walked to the back of the RV, which resulted in the RV crashing. I hate to tell you this, but that story is an absolute lie. It is an urban myth. I hope you are just as outraged at the people promoting that lie as you were at the tort system when you thought it was true. If you are a fair minded person, you should be. There are a number of stories like that one floating around out there that are absolute lies. They have absolutely no factual basis and are being circulated by tort reform advocates with hopes that people will be outraged by the frivolous nature of the allegation and lash out at the tort system.

One thing I always find interesting is that as a lawyer, I have to prove my client's case if they are going to win. However, the tort reformers who scream about all of the frivolous lawsuits have no proof. All of their claims are exaggerated, at a minimum, or total lies. If their case for tort reform was taken to court, assuming they could find a lawyer willing to handle the frivolous suit, it would be thrown out by the judge when they produced a bunch of myths to support their case.

For example, insurance rates haven't surged the last five years due to frivolous lawsuits. They are rising because insurance companies make money off the stock market. When the stock market went bad, so did their returns, which required them to seek rate increases. If you want the truth, go look at the documents the insurance companies filed with your state insurance commissioner's office seeking a rate increase. They will clearly reflect that the rate increase is needed because they didn't get the expected return on their investments and because of unusually high catastrophic natural disasters such as hurricanes and, unfortunately, the fallout from Sept. 11.

Idealistically, I would love to live in a perfect world where we could hook up people to a fool-proof truth detector and have the machine analyze each claim and give the perfect result in every case. That will never happen, but I believe our current system is as close to that as we can ever achieve. The alternative is to enact laws that would unfairly penalize those with legitimate claims. Thank you for your time.

Trial Attorney

I forgot to include a link to "prove my case" concerning the Winnebago story.

Here it is:

www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050203/COLUMNIST36/502030625

RICHARD M. STEWART

AS A PARALEGAL FOR THE PAST 14 YEARS, IT NEVER FAILS TO AMAZE ME HOW IGNORANT THE AMERICAN PUBLIC IS WHEN IT COMES TO THE DISHONESTY OF THE INSURANCE COMPANIES AND OTHER "BIG BUSINESS." HOWEVER, THE SUCCESS OF THE TORT-REFORMERS IS THE FAULT OF MY COLLEAGUES IN THE LEGAL PROFESSION. WHAT IS IT GOING TO TAKE TO GET THE ABA AND OUR STATE AND LOCAL ASSOCIATIONS TO EFFECTIVELY COMBAT THE SO-CALLED TORT-REFORMERS.

ATTORNEYS ARE REPUTED TO BE EXTREMELY EFFECTIVE AT EDUCATING AND CONVINCING PEOPLE, BUT THEY HAVE FAILED MISERABLY AT EDUCATING AND CONVINCING THE PUBLIC THAT TORT-REFORM WILL HURT, NOT BENEFIT OUR CITIZENS. IN THE PAST FOUR YEARS, EVERY TIME I HAVE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO ASSIST IN PICKING A JURY, THE QUESTION OF THE MCDONALD'S COFFEE CASE IS BROUGHT UP BY ONE OF THE VENIRE AS AN EXAMPLE OF A RUNAWAY JURY. WILL SOME ATTORNEY PLEASE GO ON NATIONAL TV/RADIO AND TELL THE REAL FACTS OF THAT CASE. I TAKE GREAT PLEASURE IN HAVING MY "CONSERVATIVE" FRIENDS READ ONE OF SEVERAL ARTICLES REGARDING THE FACTS IN THAT CASE, PARTICULARLY THE FACT THAT MCDONALDS' WITNESSES WERE CAUGHT IN LIES ON THE STAND. THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY HAS BEATEN US INTO THE GROUND AS FAR AS GETTING THEIR SIDE OF THE STORY OUT TO THIS NATION. UNFORTUNEATELY, MOST OF THIS NATION IS SO UNSOPHISTICATED THAT WHOEVER GETS THERE FIRSTIST WITH THE MOSTEST, GETS THE PUBLIC'S VOTE OF APPROVAL.

AS THE ANTI- TERRORISM ACT HAS BEGUN TO CUT AWAY AT OUR INDIVIDUAL FREEDOMS, TORT-REFORM IS YET ANOTHER CUTTING TOOL BEING USED TO UNDERMINE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

AS STATED BY ANOTHER WRITER, THE INCREASES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE INSURANCE PREMIUMS IS THE RESULT OF GREED = MISTAKES IN INSURANCE COMPANY INVESTMENTS WHICH WENT DOWN THE TUBES. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THIS SURGE IN TORT-REFORM IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED ONE OF THE WORST DOWN-TURNS IN THE HISTORY OF THE STOCKMARKET.

IN THE ELECTION OF 2004, FLORIDIANS PASSED A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT WHICH WILL EVENTUALLY MAKE MED-MAL LAWSUITS IN FLORIDA UNDER A MILLION DOLLARS UNFEASIBLE. THE WAY THE LAW READS, THE CLIENT GETS 70% OF THE FIRST TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($175,000) AND 90% OF THE NEXT TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($225,000). THUS THE CLIENT GETS $400,000 OF THE FIRST FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. THE PROPONENTS OF THIS AMENDMENT, THE INSURANCE AND MEDICAL LOBBY REALLY PULLED THE WOOL OVER THE EYES OF OUR CITIZENS. WHAT A GREAT IDEA THAT NOW THE CLIENT WILL GET MOST OF THE MONEY AND THOSE GREEDY LAWYERS WILL NOT. HOWEVER, EVERYONE WHO PRACTICES MED-MAL KNOWS THAT IT COSTS FROM FIFTY THOUSAND TO ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND PLUS TO PUT ON A DECENT MED-MAL CASE. SO, THIS AMENDMENT WILL EFFECTIVELY RAISE THE ASKING PRICE OF A MED-MAL CASE OR A POTENTIAL CLIENT WITH A CASE WORTH LESS THAN $1,000,000 DOLLARS WILL NOT BE ABLE TO FIND LEGAL REPRESENTATION. IT WILL NO LONGER BE FISCALLY SOUND TO TAKE ON A MED-MAL CASE ASSUMED TO BE WORTH UNDER A MILLION DOLLARS. THE VOTERS CUT THEIR OWN THROATS. MY BOSS AND A COLLEAGUE OF HIS GOT THE OPPORTUNITY TO POINT OUT THESE FACTS OUT TO A COUPLE HAVING LUNCH IN THE SAME RESTAURANT. THE REACTION OF THE COUPLE WAS THAT THEY WERE DUMBFOUNDED. THEY EVEN APOLOGIZED FOR BEING DUPED BY THE INSURANCE AND MEDICAL COMMUNITY. OH WELL, YOU ARE FORGIVEN FOLKS, BUT ITS TOO LATE NOW.

FOR 14 YEARS I HAVE LISTENED TO ADJUSTERS LIE, CAJOLE, STALL, THREATEN, AND ATTEMPT TO INTIMIDATE IN ORDER TO SAVE THEIR COMPANIES BOTTOM LINE. THIS COUNTRY IS IN A DOWNWARD SPIN. MONEY HAS BECOME AMERICA'S GOD. IN THE MINDS OF A SHOCKING NUMBER OF PEOPLE, THE BOTTOM LINE IS NOW THE ALMIGHTY. WHEN A SOCIETY PLACES PROFIT ABOVE THE WORTH OF A SINGLE LIFE, WE, LIKE ROME HAVE COME TO A STATE OF DEGRADATION AND MORAL CORRUPTION FROM WHICH WE MAY NEVER RECOVER. GOD, PLEASE SAVE THIS COUNTRY FROM ANY MORE REFORM EXCEPT POSSIBLY ELECTION SPENDING REFORM.

Patrick Colbeck

I appreciate your site and the information presented. Unfortunately, I believe that it misses the point that folks such as myself are attempting to make in regards to tort reform. Even if the current checks and balances were to work with 100% effectiveness in removing frivolous lawsuits, the system is broke. It is not broke due to the greed of corporations or doctors that is of concern to me, it is the greed of lawyers and plaintiffs in the form of deep-pocket-seeking lawsuits. Like many businesses seeking to earn profit, lawyers are willing to invest a large cost of sales (i.e. expenses from expert witnesses, etc.) if they have reason to expect a large return on the investment. The result is a subset of the legal community that have moved on from ambulance chasing to balance sheet chasing. Find the largest pot of money, wait for the owners of that pot to slip up, play up the role of victim and cash in. We live in a get rich quick society. The worst facet of this approach to life is that a large group of folks that seek to get rich not by improving the quality of life of their neighbors by providing new products and services but by parasitically attaching themselves to those that do. Tort reform is not about padding corporate bank accounts. Tort reform is about stemming the current tide towards a more and more litigious society where every human mistake is viewed as a chance to win the lottery rather than an opportunity to work together to improve the quality of life for all of us as well as demonstrate compassion and forgiveness.

creditmonitoringsucks

With all due respect Patrick.

You talk about all the humanistic -- we need to be compassionate rehtoric you want, corporations are not human nor are they compassionate. They may employ humans but they only act to the requirements of the law. And they only will pay if forced to by litigation.

You can take your tort reform and stick it. Cause I am not buying. Society is litigious because businesses only fix major mistakes when sued. That has been my personal experience. Other wise it is business as usual.

Patrick Colbeck

Let's not forget that lawyers tend to form legal entities akin to corporations. Unless you can convince me that PLC's are significantly different in their ethical leanings from corporations, I believe that the same courses of action that you emphasize in dealing with corporations should also be applied to the legal community at large...most notably the observation that they only act to the requirements of the law but otherwise try to get away with anything that they can in order to earn a buck. The fact is that they have been "sticking it" to businesses for quite some time in the interest of their own profit under the often false veil of the common good and its about time that the pendulum started to swing back the other way. If we don't, the economic forces that have made us the exceptional country that we are will stall and stagnate.

If you really want to be realistic about the course forward, I think its important to realize that a team of the best lawyers in the world could draft legal statutes or contracts filled with legal jargon that when printed out could pave a path from here to the moon but there will always be loopholes of which an equally brilliant team of lawyers could take advantage. When is the last time that you witnessed a class action lawsuit against a law firm that failed to protect the legal interests of a set of their former clients? If it has happened, it has not been well advertised. On the other hand, frivolous lawsuits have been practicing "legal" extortion towards any corporation or individual professional that prove that producing a quality product or service 100% of the time is a pipe dream. We are all human. I believe that it's time to recognize this fact in our legal system and "stick" a few Post-It reminders to this effect on the foreheads of our legal community.

Trial Attorney

Patrick, you sound like a very articulate, educated individual that is repeating what you have been told by the tort reformers. They love people like you because you are intelligent and predisposed to believe into what they are telling you. You can influence people because of your status. Unfortunately, you have fallen victim to their lies. Your posts are full of opinions that have no factual basis. Are you capable of providing some real life examples or facts to support this statement:

"The fact is that they have been "sticking it" to businesses for quite some time in the interest of their own profit under the often false veil of the common good and its about time that the pendulum started to swing back the other way. If we don't, the economic forces that have made us the exceptional country that we are will stall and stagnate"

Do you have any support for this statement:

"Find the largest pot of money, wait for the owners of that pot to slip up, play up the role of victim and cash in"

Patrick, turn your anger towards those who have misled you about the need for tort reform. You are capable of influencing those around you. Form your opinion based upon facts, not what you have been told by those with an agenda, like me. As a trial attorney, I obviously have an agenda. My agenda is to protect individual rights. Do your research and then come back and post again. If you still feel the same as you do now, post the factual basis for your beliefs. I am always open to consider facts.

Patrick Colbeck

Fair enough...I'll do some more systematic research on the points that you cited.

In the meantime, I ask you to consider the "corporate" nature of law firms and apply the same standards that you ask of the rest of the business community to the legal community.

Creditmonitoringsucks

I don't know about you but none of the lawyers I have been exposed to in my case are "corporate" and the only ones bringing the "corporate" lawyers to our party are the defendants.

joel geller

To the pro tort reformers who doubt the truth of what the webmaster says:

Go to consummerwatchdog.org and read all about it.

Harvey Rosenfield is a consummer rights attorney in Santa Monica CA who worked for Ralph Nader.

He is Ralph Nader of old. He runs a non profit center for taxpayer and consummer rights and does not have any other agenda than the best interest of the public at large.

He is AGAINST tort reform, as is Ralph Nader, and for good reason... becasause its coorporate propaganda.

Its pure logic. Why would I want to take on a case where my fee is based on the recovery if the case doesn't have merit? I'll waste time and money.

In CA Craig McClellan of McClellan and Gomez, fought Honda and Ford for there unsafe and defective products.
Honda's three wheel atv and ford's flip flop explorer.

He recovered a decent amount for his crippled unsuspecting client but moreover he forced Honda to stop making the unsafe product that had killed or crippled hundreds if not thousands of people including many children.

Go to his site and watch the video where, after going to the Supreme Court to force the Japanese CEO to testify, he make him sob on cross examination. The CEO was presented with a list of victims of his product that includes many children. The CEO admits that he never had bothered to read the list of his victims and overwhelmed by guilt of his serial killing breaks down and crys.

Remove the trial attorney and you remove the last remaining gatekeeper to public saftey.

And why do you resent the fact that the trial attorney makes a lot of money. Why don't you recent the corporate CEO's that make millions.

Why is it ok with the public that rap stars make millions or sports stars and entertainers but resent a person with the guts, perserverence and talent to take on an seriously injured victim's cause against a cold blooded sociopathac corporation.

If Honda had spent ten percent of its advertising budget on saftey research they would never have been sued in the first place. But they were salivating at the billions in profit they would make and rushed the product to market without one little thought of concern for their customers saftey.

Better yet if they had spent the money they donate to back Tort reform the crippled little g girl in another video would be running and playing with her friends. Instead she use every bit of her quadrapeligic energy to suck in enough air to keep her alive. Not for trial attorneys she would not even received compensation for this. Compensation she will need for the rest of her life to pay for her medical needs.

Aside from limiting access to trial attorneys and courts the purpose of tort reform is to condition the general public to be skeptical about injury lawsuits.
That way the jury pool comes into court with a preconceived unconscious or conscious bias against the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, as are most crimminal defendants, are presummed guilty at the onset of the trial.

Carrying the burden of proof is truly a burden.

So when you hear about a jury award remember it was just that, a jury or people like you who probably felt as you do at the onset of the trial but faced with the cold hard evidence they set aside their bias against the plaintiff and trial attorney and made an award that they, not the trial attorney, felt was just under all of the facts and circumstances.

Until you stand before a jury of your clients peers looking into their skeptical eyes knowing what an uphill battle you face you can never appreciate the true talent and guts of the trial attorney.

I could go on or you can read some of my rantings on Workinjury.com. I now practice in workers compensation and guess what the tort reformers used their tricks to get comp reform in CA. So the honest working people of CA who gives their bodies and lives for their employer can't even choose the doctor they want. The State thinks its in their best interest to allow the insurance company to pick the doctor.

One day the tort reform people will fall victim to this scam. When it happens to you don't come to our office and pretend that you didn't support it. When the attorney refuses your case don't act indignant like you didn't get what you voted for. Suck it up and push your second hand wheel chair right out the door.


Michael Monheit

Glad to see someone getting this right! Keep up the good work.

RICH STEWART

IN ADDITION TO MY PREVIOUS RESPONSE TO THE ARTICLE "THE MYTH OF THE FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT," I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE REPORTED FEES OF PHYSICIANS WAS GROSSLY UNDDERSTATED. EVEN HERE IN TINY BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA, THE FEE FOR A PHYSICIAN'S TESTIMONY WHETHER IN DEPOSITION OR TRIAL IS $600.00 PER HOUR. A FINAL NARRATIVE CAN COST UPWARDS OF $500.00.

Yes, severly limit what lawyers can take.

Brian Pedigo

You forgot about the Judicial remedy of remittitur. See Fisch v. Manger, 24 N.J. 66

J. Centeno

I HAVE BEEN A VICTIM OF THE SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TOOL:
Kings County Hospital and HHC classified/categorized me against my will, on my back, knowingly and willfully, on the following categories: "B1, RACE 3, provisional, not a QHP or Qualified Health Professional, Not permanent, not qualified" and then have used (and continue using) such tools or lies as justification to deny me access to promotional lines. I was denied applications, and when I was allowed to apply and was interviewed for some positions, I was rejected and persons with High School Diplomas were hired for positions demanding a Master Degree (Which I have). NONE of the pre-selected candidates were classified in those classifications or categories as I was. After EEOC, (who ussually washes the hands with a Right to Sue Letter)I could not find a lawyer who was willing to take my case at contingency and I decided to go Pro Se.
But the Magistrate and Superior Judges (Bloom and Dearie)used the Summary Judgement tool to dispose of my case without my Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury, and avoided their Social Responsibility and Judicial Duty because such illegal classifications to justify the denial of applications and promotions are prohibited by the Title VII Act and the Bill of Rights. Now I am in the process of Appeal. Therefore: SUMMARY JUDGEMENT IN MY CASE, WAS USED TO DENIE ME MY CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY WHICH I DEMANDED IN THE ORIGINAL COMPLAIN.
NOTE: Since you are praising the "Contingency Tool" also, if you can find one for me PLEASE send him/her because my case is not a frivolous case but one of great SOCIAL INTEREST!
Thank You.

Steve S.

A note to Dave G., the RV cruise control story is a myth. Never happened. Check here (http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp)

Don Hughes

I would like to know what the procedure\ process would be for filing a lawsuit against a car dealer in Miami Florida. Relevant issues ,primarily falsly representing a vehicle as a 1 owner immaculate condition, however not limited to the alteration of vehicle emmission system. The emmisions alterations prevented the vehicle from passing the Maryland Vehicle Emmissions Test. I consulted the Miami consumer protection services , after several months , I still do not have the issue resolved by the officer handling the case. I'd appreciate it if anyone could give me some insight on this issue. Thanks.

ABB AND LOZ

WELL WE ARE NOT BEING FUNNY OR ANYTHING BUT TO SAY YOU ARE A WOMAN, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SHAVED YOUR LEGS? BECAUSE THEY WAS BLOODY HAIRY!!! SORRY BUT IT HAD TO BE SAID PLEASE REPLY BACK

natalie rinpoc

i am loking for man to have a date with me!!!! if interested call 6453754 colombia, bogota i will be wating for your call!!!!


SEXO TAMBIEN!!!! SEX TOO!!!!

Becky

I HATE MCDONALDS!!!!

Leora

I HATE MCDONALDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

YLG

I am sorry we can't all get along and agree to disagree. If I had to err on one side or the other, I would have to say, sent it to the jury, let them decide, period. Enough. We have second-guessed our jury system too long already. George Washington is turning in his grave.

Mark Dietel

Facts:

In my town of Lincoln, NE, the boat rentals on our local lake was shut down. The horse rental business at our only park also closed down. Of course sharp lawyers are going to come up with all kinds of creative reasons to opppose tort reform, but facts are facts. You don't fool us! We see the fruit of your work everyday. Trial lawyers have driven entire industries out of business. The general aviation industry is just one example. Simply look at the cover of your local Yellow Pages, or all the absurd warning lables on anything you buy, and it is more than obvious that the legal profession is out of control. Do a "google" on any drug on the market and you get inundated with class action lawsuit listings. Who do you think pays for it all?? George Washington would puke if he knew what has become our the US legal system.

Mark Dietel

This site loves to use the phrase "The Truth", so how about the truth? How come no lawyer on this site has mentioned the amount of money that this country spends on litigation? The answer is obvious; they don’t want you to know. To put it into perspective, we spend more money on litigation than new automobiles each year. That is a huge amount of money! You may be thinking so what? Every dollar spent on litigation is one less dollar available for doctors, medical research, education, etc. Every lawsuit has a winner and a looser, and quite often the attorneys are the only winner. There is no real product produced or value added. What about justice, isn’t that the end product? The true measure of any justice system is the consistency of application, and with this regard the American tort system fails miserably. Someone truly wronged may be awarded little or nothing, while someone participating in an inherently dangerous activity (like smoking or drinking hot coffee!) successfully sues for millions (justice?). In fact the consistency of application is so bad, it’s often used overseas as an example of a corrupt system.

Every year the “Attorney” section of any major metropolitan area yellow pages gets larger and larger. In fact it’s the biggest section in the book, and they dominate the front and back covers with “slip and fall” ads. It’s no wonder this once great nation has lost it’s competitive edge with the rest of the world. The only thing we are good at is litigation and ambulance chasing!

hi im 17 years old and i work at mcdonalds and im ashamed of working there after reading that artical umm thats all i wanted to say

Chris Raesz

Mark Dietel--

What is your source for your statements? Given the state of affairs in the middle east, you soon may be buying a new car. Not because of degradation, but to find something with a better mpg rating. Based upon your post, I presume you have no inside information as to any real litigation. I am a litigator. I represent people, not corporations. I work on both sides of the bar depending upon what the situation may be, but I will admit to working mostly for plaintiffs (nature of the beast). In my state, soon my clients will have nothing left to pursue. I represent the elderly that have been scammed by 'gypsies' for roof repair, I represent a man sued for a 20 (yes this number is correct) year old debt that was paid. I represent a couple that paid in full a $60,000.00 repair contract for their home where the contractor walked off the job. I represent a couple that had a house built by a homebuilder that did so without putting any support in the foundation under load bearing walls (he took bankruptcy - neither I nor my clients received payment on the $170,000 judgment). I represent a poor laborer who has been pingponged through adjusters on a claim that the insurance company's client was ticketed for turning into oncoming traffic and has lost thousands due to their insureds actions. I represent a sole proprietor who watched his dump truck be crushed by a lightpole struck by a mower in the median and his livelihood being taken away (soon to be in bankruptcy if I can't get it settled or tried). Does this sound to you like frivolous litigation?

Those are just a few. My bank account is running thin. I have a family to feed. I try to do the right thing. Show me your facts.

eeeeeeewwwwww the leg is ming

marian cruise

do you really think somebody can read so much information? i can end the first page please dont make us that its a horrible and sicknes picture youre sick and crazy think about this im onnly 14 years old and im a mexican girl please think youre older and i suppost intelligent people but now i can seet that isnt trut you sock!!!

marian cruise

do you really think somebody can read so much information? i can end the first page please dont make us that its a horrible and sicknes picture youre sick and crazy think about this im onnly 14 years old and im a mexican girl please think youre older and i suppost intelligent people but now i can seet that isnt trut you sock!!!

Bucky

The notion that the contingency fee lawyer provides evertone access to the court system is a ridiculous argument. The court system is not cost prohibitive, the representation in court is. Attorneys who feel they are providing some sort of publc service should be offering pro bono representation, rather than transfering their outrageous fees to the third party being extorted. I have seen many civil disputes, and the final court's verdict has never compared to the damages inflicted bt the lawyer fees. The attorney is why the system fails, any type of reform is a means to fix their abuse of process. The reality is that we do not have a court system intended for, or able to provides justice in a civil dispute. The failing is the fact that the attornies have been allowed to hijack the entire legal process, and much like government "police" themselves. What a crock!

margaret

I was rearended in a five car pile up being the first car to be hit and hitting the car in front of me etc. I have been going to the doctor for almost 2 years. I have one week before my statue to file lawsuit runs out. My doc asked how my case was going because he has not been paid yet for my medical services even though I am still under care? He asked has my attorney filed lawsuit and that he has only one week left.
I called my attorney and he has not filed. He wants me to now hurry and get all the reports and cost in to him of my med bills, even though I am in the middle of epidural injections, because HE SAYS, HE WANTS TO SETTLE BEFORE THE STATUE RUNS OUT- WITH OUT FILING LAW SUIT! PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHY? And will he have time to file lawsuit in one week ? If we don't get all the expenses to him in time!

Frivolous

You are dreaming with your idealized image of the legal system. Wake up! We were sued for specific performance by a crooked lawyer and developer. We filed for summary judgement, but since they disputed everything, the Judge couldn't tell who was telling the truth and we had to go to trial -- so much for a quick solution. The plaintiff came into the trial with an entirely different story -- and our evidence had to be in the week before the trial so how could we defend something we had never heard before? They lied and convinced the jury that they had done everything they need to do to be "ready, willing and able" to close on our property, but that we had refused to sign the papers. They won and we were ordered to close. However, since it was all lies, we were ordered to sign papers that never existed and could not be produced. When they could not close on the court ordered date, they filed a motion asking for more time. The Judge had figured out that they were lying by that point and told them so. However, that did not prevent them from appealing. Our property (and our entire lives) has been tied up for 3 years and the courts are so far behind (I wonder why!) that we still don't even have a date for the appeal hearing and the other side is already threatening to go to the state Supreme Court if they don't win. The honest person is only a victim in this "justice" system where dishonest people have learned how to use the system to their advantage. We know that the developer will not be able to close even if he were to win the appeal, but still our lives are tied up and all of the money for our son's education and our retirement is gone. The court system allows this legalized form of theft and citizens need to bring some justice back into the system. We are told that we cannot file a frivolous lawsuit case (even if we could afford it) becaus they won and therefore their case wasn't frivolous. If we don't go on and defend ourselves in the appeal, they will win by default. There is no way out if someone wants to ruin your life and that needs to change.

Bill

I note, in one of the comments, that this site is run by "one college student", who signs as "Justinian Lane".

Mr. Lane:

1) If you are a college student (which I doubt) you have no real-world experience in the world of law and courts. Your academically oriented ideas concerning the "remedies" available to unjustly sued parties are only that - academic remedies. They fail in the world of reality, because they ALL COST TIME AND MONEY.
2) A contingency-fee arrangement is the most pernicious, corrupt, and vile form of business arrangement. It encourages needless litigation by attorneys, whose REAL costs of suit are considerably lower than you seem to believe. Furthermore, it distorts the supposedly "unbiased" advice that the attorney gives a client, for example:
Attorney Bob sues for Bill. Attorney Bob, unfortunately, needs money. The defendant offers, on a particularly bad day for Attorney Bob, a low-ball settlement. Because Bob doesn't really give a crap about Bill the Plaintiff, but only about his own pocketbook, he convinces Bill that "this is the best we can get", and "we should take it now", because Attorney Bob needs to make a boat payment before it is repossessed. I note that none of these real-world actualities are included in your lame academic explanation of events in a suit. This happens EVERY DAY.
3) The ultimate preventative for meritless suits is a "loser-pays" rule. It should work like this: Attorney Bob agrees to sue for Plaintiff Bill for some meritless reason, in exchange for 40% of the recovery. They lose. The costs to the defendant to defend this meritless action are $100,000. Now, if Plaintiff Bill had WON, Attorney Bob would have gained. It stands to reason that if he picks a fight with the defendant, and LOSES, he should have to pay. Therefore, the attorney kicks in $40,000, and the plaintiff $60,000, to the defendant to pay his legal costs. A rule like this would COMPLETELY, ABSOLUTELY, and ENTIRELY stop meritless suits. And, any "good" suit, would always win, right?

Before you post nonsense like the tripe you have on this site, go join the real world and work in it awhile.

Justinian Lane

Bill:

My my, I do seem to have ruffled your feathers. If you look at my bio, you'll see I worked as a paralegal for several years and then decided to go to college so I can become a personal injury attorney. I'm starting law school in August, but right now I am a bona fide college student. Not sure why that's so hard to believe.

Judging by your anger, I'm guessing you're either an insurance defense lawyer or have been sued.

Res Ipsa Cogitur

“Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free” - for we welcome them to our nation, the greatest democracy the world has ever known, a nation whose citizens work hard and live proudly in liberty under the rule of law. Let the tired and poor come here to work themselves ragged in pursuit of the great American dream and when, as they should, the efforts of their labors begin to bear fruit, some lawyer will come out of the slime and sue the life out of them! What a great and noble profession the law is. Our legal system, in the name of freedom and “the rule of law”, through the actions of trial lawyers and the blessings of the courts, will ensure that lives of some honest, hard-working people, such as the Chungs (65M dollar pants) are turned into a living hell – for years on end. I, and millions of other reasonable Americans, apologize to the Chungs for having subjected them to this nightmare of irrational treatment that amounts to nothing less than cruel and unusual punishment meted out by a self-serving bunch of miscreants. Many are overly quick to suggest that the plaintiff was the problem here but the truth is that the Chungs received this punishment at the hands of our lawyer-perverted civil legal system – that branch of law found at the bottom of the legal food chain – it is this system that allows, in fact encourages this malevolent behavior to take place. It has nothing to do with corporate reform or the Hand formula. The Chungs aren’t alone of course – these irrational, often cruel but most importantly UNREASONABLE lawyer-driven machinations go on every day of the week, every day of the year. The moment someone manages to acquire something, a lawyer will be there (perhaps you Napolean, sorry I mean Justinian), all too pleased to relieve them of their hard-won gains (because they didn’t realize that in America you need to engage a different group of lawyers to protect yourself against the first group of lawyers and, of course, both groups rely measurably on some degree of court-sanctioned theft for their meal tickets). It is the legal industry that is in dire need of corporate reform. What a noble profession! Did you sleep through constitutional law? Your feigned concern for injured people is touching really but in truth, rather weak – be honest, you like (or at least will, assuming you pass your bar exams) the job and you like the money – and if you look deep inside you will have to admit that you are also attracted to the power that your practicing certificate will bring. Come on Justinian (really?) you appear to be endowed with more than a modicum of grey matter, rise from the slime, parasites are no longer in vogue, turn you back on the torts teratomatic vestige of British common law - become a constitutional lawyer or get a real job, produce something, make a genuine (real) contribution to America and your fellow beings. Thousands of innocent, decent, hard-working people are, in effect, taxed at every juncture by a system whose purpose was otherwise but that unconscionably rewards lawyers and is indifferent to, or negligently unaware, of its consequence.

Stoney conyers

What do you think? My daughter was driving my 1990 735I BMW last spring when smoke entered thru the vents and she called me which i told her to pull over and get out of the car. she did and shortly after the car filled with smoke firing the drivers airbag and locking down all the doors. Fire department arrived,could not get in when the fire died out and smoke was vented thru the trunk. BMW was notified and checked that 3 saftey recalls had not been done on the car. i asked why they had not checked them when i was at the local service department a few times before for parts and had given them the serial number. they said they didnot track 3 owners. They offered compensation on a new car or small amount on repairs,which the local shop guys said the car was totaled due to cost to replace and repair damage. My daughter was nearly killed and they are not taking this seriously.I just want the car repaired or replaced with a same vintage auto,waiting on BMW Germany and USA final comment.What does it take to get their attention.

AC

How about a LOSER PAYS system?

Lourraine Stamets

I lost my glorious husband of 34 years due to a myriad of facilities and their oversights, mistakes, and lack of moral fortitude, too many horrors to list. He suffered, many times needlessly at the hand of these "medical professionals" He was 54 when he died on March 15, 2006. I died also. What price can anyone put on human life and suffering? No attorney will even go near this case###############.The root of all evil. It seems to me that there must be some lawyer & doc that still give a crap, and would like to do the right thing, or am I just too naieve to live?

This entire situation is only to bccome more of a mess as the boomers are arriving in the heart attack and prostate zone.


The facility responsible for the majority cf this entire nightmare is Somerset Medical Center, Somerville, NJ. There are hundreds, if not thousands of patients and their families living through this torture right this minute at facilities everywhere. How horribly sad, and by the way Merry Christmas, yeah right, and have a good weekend too.

Lourraine Stamets

Nicholas

In response to Craig's comment about insurance premiums going up in texas. obviously he doesn't know the facts. Tort reform had barely been passed when Craig's comment was posted (2005) and in the first year AFTER the cap was placed malpractice premiums had DROPPED 13% according to the SA Express News.
Also, who puts a fresh hot cup of coffee with no lid (she had removed the lid) in between your legs in a moving vehicle. It was not McDonald's fault that she didn't exercise common sense and I am glad that they didn't decrease their coffee temps because of this. Can't handle the coffee, put ice in it.

Scott Day

I am wondering if I have a case against Coors Beer for a tab that I swallowed from their beer can. I opened the can and the tab fell into the can without my knowing and I swallowed it. It is causing some discomfort and I am concerned that I may need to have it removed if it lodges in my digestive track. I think that the manufacturing of the can has been altered lately using cheaper thinner aluminum making the tab brittle and can cause a choke factor.

My wife and child are worried as we can not afford to go to the doctor. This tab needs to be redesigned so that no one else has to deal with the same fear.
I have the can and will soon freeze the tab once passed.
Any suggestions? / interest?
Scott Day

Scott Day

I am wondering if I have a case against Coors Beer for a tab that I swallowed from their beer can. I opened the can and the tab fell into the can without my knowing and I swallowed it. It is causing some discomfort and I am concerned that I may need to have it removed if it lodges in my digestive track. I think that the manufacturing of the can has been altered lately using cheaper thinner aluminum making the tab brittle and can cause a choke factor.

My wife and child are worried as we can not afford to go to the doctor. This tab needs to be redesigned so that no one else has to deal with the same fear.
I have the can and will soon freeze the tab once passed.
Any suggestions? / interest?
Scott Day

Disabled Registered Nurse (Terry)

Patrick Patrick,

A Registered Nurse with nursing licenses in several states, I became disabled on the job. But to add insult to injury my disability was compounded by a 17 year old boy, driving his father's F10 pick-up who ran a red light and T-boned the car which I was in. Believe it or not, the motor vehicle accident is still pending more than 6 1/2 years later. More than 17 years of Nursing, which was my life, my career has been striped away from me. While each tort reform law is different, they all are designed to either limit the circumstances under which injured people may sue, limit how much money juries may award to injured people, or both. I should know, because I am living it today. There are far more ligitimate lawsuits then anything frivolus you may think. Open up your eyes and do your homework, prior to trying to bash someone or something you are not very knowlegeable about.

Cheryl

Another factor that prevents lawsuits (frivolous, valid or otherwise) is that the AMA, state medical societies and medical organizations (like the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons) considers a doctor to be "practicing medicine" when he or she testifies against a defendant doctor. The AMA and others use intimidation, threat of discipline and actual lawsuits for defamation in an effort to stop even treating doctors from testifying for injured patients.

Shame on the AMA. It is akin to protecting bad doctors at the expense of the public.

www.advocateyourself.blogspot.com

The comments to this entry are closed.