Trial lawyers have money problems
They are still spending money trying to block any form of tort reform in the health care legislation. I have noticed fewer ads soliciting clients for medical treatment issues, which used to compete with the gold bugs for ads on Fox New's Special Report. It could just be a strategic retreat, but I thought the ads were really sleazy. They may have already blown through their windfall from the Tobacco settlements. Many of the recent silicosis suits appear to have been based on a medical malpractice that they solicited. It will be interesting to see if they can dig themselves out of this hole.The trial lawyers lobby has been awash in debt and bleeding members - just as it embarks on a national campaign to block any clampdown on medical malpractice lawsuits as part of President Obama's health care overhaul.
The American Association for Justice, the most prominent group representing plaintiffs' attorneys, has seen a shake-up in its executive suite and has struggled to deal with what appears to be a mounting budget shortfall. To help it fight congressional efforts to make it harder for patients to sue doctors and lawyers, it recently sent out an extra solicitation to its members, asking them to fork over money for a lobbying campaign.
The most striking evidence of its financial woes is a swift decline in income, which resulted in a more than $6.2 million deficit in its operating budget for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2008, the most recent year for which data are available.
The biggest hit to its books was in membership dues, which dropped from $28.6 million in 2005 to $19.2 million in 2008, according to the annual AAJ financial report for that fiscal year filed with the Internal Revenue Service.
...
Only a small percent of plaintiff's lawyers do medical malpractice. It's a highly specialized field, with many having been doctors before studying law, or were in some other health care field. So saying because of changes to the med malpractice laws the overall plaintiff's bar now is suffering financial problems doesn't line up with the facts.
ReplyDeleteIf the plaintiff's bar is hurting, more likely it's due to the general economy which is affecting everyone, not because of any medical malpractice issues because again that affects only a small percentage of plaintiff's lawyers.
It's also important to note that, while a few famous plaintiff's lawyers earn a lot, on average, the highest income earning trial lawyers are those that represent insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, nursing homes, and other corporations. When the "the trial lawyers" are mentioned, why aren't those lawyers ever named? I guess that shows whose voice is the loudest in this debate.
The tort reform movement's solution to the malpractice lawsuit 'problem' is to limit damages, not to tighten the system up so that innocent doctors, hospitals, and so on are not wrongfully prosecuted. They want even the guilty to not be held accountable, even though they may have done great harm to the injured party out of obvious negligence or malfeasance.
They also know that if they limit damages to $250,000, which sounds like a lot of money to the average person, they will essentially kill most lawsuits. Med malpractice lawsuits are expensive to try, and if the plaintiff prevails, their lawyer will get about a third of the award - roughly $80,000. They also know that such lawsuits can cost $50,000 or more to try given all the time, labor, expert witnesses, tests and so forth often required in such suits. They also know that juries are often sympathetic to doctors, and will sometimes rule in their favor even when the evidence says something different.
If the total award is limited to $250,000, a plaintiff’s lawyer may get a $30,000 net pay off after expenses, compared to a $50,000 loss if they lose. So they will decline to take many of those cases because the pay off does not justify the risk. That is especially so when a lawyer can settle an accident or worker’s comp case much more easily with less expense, less uncertainty and often a much bigger pay off.
The tort reform people know all of that, and that’s why they’ve set the $250,000 limit on awards as their goal, to discourage almost all malpractice lawsuits, even the legitimate ones.
Their concern is not for justice or fairness, only that those they represent will effectively not be held accountable.
Think about if, in the criminal law, we said since there are too many innocent people getting convicted of rape, instead of changing the evidence rules or investigation procedures to insure that only the guilty are punished, we just limit the sentence of everyone convicted of rape to 90 days in the county jail. Who would advocate that? Only the rapists and their supporters.
The tort reform people point out that only non-economic damages will be limited, not "actual" damages. But their definition of "actual" damages is mainly one's earning power. So if the person harmed is just a low hourly wage worker, then the harm done to them is really not that bad, right?
Also consider this, what if you are man, and due to sloppiness and negligence a lab messes up your test results and a doctor ends up unnecessarily removing your testicles. Under the tort reform plan, you really didn't get hurt that bad because you can still earn a living without your testicles, right? What if you're a woman, and they wrongfully remove your breasts? The tort reform plan says you weren't really harmed much if you were an office worker, because you don't need your breasts to do office work, right?
Should we tighten up the rules so only the guilty are punished?
Yes.
But should we do what the so-called tort reformers advocate and let the guilty hurt people with impunity?
No way.