She was sitting in a parked car, in the passenger's seat, trying to prepare her coffee without the benefit of a cup holder. The mythology of Stella's avarice and stupidity is simply amazing. The mis led "Citizens" Against Lawsuit Abuse "groups" have done a truly remarkable job in demonizing an elderly woman who suffered appalling injuries and making her the symbol of all that's supposedly bad.
What personal responsibility do you want her to accept?
Is there any evidence that tort reform increases insurance premiums? Lessens the quality of medical care?
I hope people realize that the caps are on non-economic damages. There is no cap AFAIK on compensation for the actual harm (i.e., medical bills). But that's just a minor distinction, right?
I'd be curious to find out whether the 2.7mm award against McDonald's was for their conduct in trying to settle the case as opposed to the actual harm the lady suffered.
If he could, I suspect that Cameron Todd Willingham would take issue with your claim that "murderers" are coddled.
In some places (Nebraska, for one), there's a hard cap on even economic damages. I suspect that a lot of tort reform proponents see something along those lines as a goal in their efforts.
Frankly, my earlier post was only partially meant as sarcasm. I'm quite convinced that the tort reform movement is, to some degree at least, hopeful that it can wholly eradicate personal injury litigation by making it entirely cost prohibitive. If you can't outlaw it affirmatively, you sure as can put up as many practical roadblocks as possible.
I might be speaking out of my ass, but how's that not a due process violation?
"hopeful that it can wholly eradicate personal injury litigation"
so people who are injured by corps or docs or whomever are just ed?
Actually - the Nebraska example is disingenuous. From Gourley the case that upheld the statute imposing the cap
The Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act was created to address a perceived medical liability crisis. The act created a medical review panel, capped the amount of damages that could be recovered, and created the Excess Liability Fund. Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 44-2801 et seq. (Reissue 1998). Under the act, health care providers that do not opt out of the act's coverage must file proof of financial responsibility with the Director of Insurance and pay surcharges for the excess liability fund. §§ 44-2821 and 44-2824. The act allows patients to opt out of the act's coverage. § 44-2821(3). Section 44-2825 provides:
(1) The total amount recoverable under the Nebraska Hospital Medical Liability Act from any and all health care providers and the Excess Liability Fund for any occurrence resulting in any injury or death of a patient may not exceed... (c) one million two hundred fifty thousand dollars for any occurrence after December 31, 1992.
(2) A health care provider qualified under the act shall not be liable to any patient or his or her representative who is covered by the act for an amount in excess of two hundred thousand dollars for all claims or causes of action arising from any occurrence during the period that the act is effective with reference to such patient.
65*65 (3) Subject to the overall limits from all sources as provided in subsection (1) of this section, any amount due from a judgment or settlement which is in excess of the total liability of all liable health care providers shall be paid from the Excess Liability Fund pursuant to sections 44-2831 to 44-2833.
What's disingenuous about it?
It may be mistaken, but it wasn't disingenuous. I offered that example from anecdote and probably should have checked it before offering it.
The implication drawn from NE's hard cap is that people are not being fully compensated from the injuries. That implication is incorrect.
Two days later after having sex with Tyson Chandler.
Then why this happened to Gourley?
A jury ruled that Colin was a victim of medical negligence, finding that $5.625 million was needed to compensate him for his medical care and a lifetime of suffering. But Nebraska's law -- a cap on damages -- severely cut this jury verdict to a fraction of what Colin needs. As a result, Colin will have to rely on the state for assistance for the rest of his life. His family had to move from their home to pay for his care. They are now having to fight Medicaid for Colin's continuing treatment.
Not that I don't believe you, but something doesn't jive.
Why did what happen? I don't understand your question.
Why was the $5.625 million award reduced to the cap on the Act on subsection 1 ($1.25 million)?
Honest question, BTW.
I'm not so familiar with this type of , but my guess would be to prevent over-compensating plaintiffs for their future medical bills.
Actually, I just found the ruling:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ne-suprem...t/1294749.html
Notice that the cap was applied, and the Gourleys sued basically over what you mentioned earlier (special legislation, equal protection, open courts and right to a remedy, right to a jury trial, taking of property, and separation of powers).
But the Supreme Court was 'unconvinced', and held the statute as cons utional and thus the cap was applied.
I have a feeling that the Fund payments might go through 'as needed' and that medical professionals might not want to take on patients that don't opt-in into the act. It's the only way that makes sense to get a reduction on malpractice policy, IMO. Interesting case.
Actually, I take that back. Reading through the "response to the justice McCormick dissenting opinion" (), the Fund is there to cover the difference between the $200,000 cap up to the max amount ($1.25 million).
To compensate for judgments above $200,000 per qualified health care provider, but below the cap on total recovery, the act creates the Excess Liability Fund (hereinafter the Fund), which is supported by a surcharge levied on all qualified health care providers. See § 44-2829.
About due process:
However, as the per curiam opinion correctly determines, the issue of substantive due process has not been brought before this court, and we are precluded from deciding, on the record and briefing before us, whether the act comports with that cons utional mandate. Nonetheless, my judicial responsibilities compel me to express my serious reservations regarding the act's satisfaction of cons utional due process, for the benefit of other litigants, the members of the Legislature, and their cons uents, the public.
BTW, since I have some resident lawyers reading around here, I'm working on a CLE app for iOS devices (iPad, iPhone, etc) so you can track your current CLE on different states. I might need a beta tester or two, so if any of you guys are interested, please PM me.
/end sales pitch
I didn't pay attention to the "subject to the overall limits" language from what I posted. My bad.
I do find it curious that a patient has the ability to opt out of the Hospital Medical Liability Act. http://nebraskalegislature.gov/laws/...tatute=44-2821
Yeah, and the court noted that. Unfortunately, I have a feeling you're asked to sign in into the act before you get care. From a malpractice insurance POV, you couldn't get $200,000 coverage if you have patients that could go over, IMO.
I can't get over this. In the preceding paragraph, the argument I was thinking of (due process being violated when the property of tort victims is taken by the legislature in the form of a cap) is made. I have no idea why you'd try equal protection and not due process in this case. Makes no ing sense at all.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
