NationStates Jolt Archive

Bush wants to reform the court system to prevent huge sums of money from being awarded in medical malpractice cases. His plan features two main steps:
1) Trying all class-action law suits in a federal court
2) Capping the amount of money that a jury can award for non-economic suffering at $250,000.

What do you think about this plan? Personally, I believe the first step to reforming the courts is increasing jury awareness. Far too often a jury will award a plantiff a huge sum of money not because a doctor was necessarily negligent, but only because the plantiff was injured. Make sure juries understand better what demands a verdict favoring the plantiff and what does not and a cap shouldn't need to be placed on awards.

my idea (which was also kerry's idea if i recall correctly) is to make a panel of old judges to decide which cases should go to court and which shouldnt (several of them)

Bush wants to reform the court system to prevent huge sums of money from being awarded in medical malpractice cases. His plan features two main steps:
1) Trying all class-action law suits in a federal court
2) Capping the amount of money that a jury can award for non-economic suffering at $250,000.

What do you think about this plan? Personally, I believe the first step to reforming the courts is increasing jury awareness. Far too often a jury will award a plantiff a huge sum of money not because a doctor was necessarily negligent, but only because the plantiff was injured. Make sure juries understand better what demands a verdict favoring the plantiff and what does not and a cap shouldn't need to be placed on awards.
I see this as an incredibly dangerous thing. I don't know if in America the case of Harold Shipman is well known, but he was a doctor who murdered over 200 of his elderly patients. I agree that there are problems with malpractice suits and that it's driving up the cost of medical insurance, but this seems like a ill-advised proposal that hasn't taken into account a large section of the problem.

Not to mention, federal courts have a massive caseload already. Dumping this on them is gonna seriously slow down the wheels of justice.

Capping awards is one of the worst ideas we can do, really...though you do have a point about juries needing to be smarter rather than awarding money based on sympathy. And they need to stop awarding money for colossal insanity; for example, if you cut your leg on a knife lying around someone's house while you're breaking into it, you shouldn't be awarded thousands of dollars in injury fees or whatever. Any jury that awards money to burglars like this should be sued for insanity.

I see this as an incredibly dangerous thing. I don't know if in America the case of Harold Shipman is well known, but he was a doctor who murdered over 200 of his elderly patients. I agree that there are problems with malpractice suits and that it's driving up the cost of medical insurance, but this seems like a ill-advised proposal that hasn't taken into account a large section of the problem.

Not to mention, federal courts have a massive caseload already. Dumping this on them is gonna seriously slow down the wheels of justice.

Well, murder is completely different from negligence and should be handled accordingly.

You say federal courts have a massive caseload? Give judges more power to decide which cases are frivoulous grabs at money and which aren't.

my idea (which was also kerry's idea if i recall correctly) is to make a panel of old judges to decide which cases should go to court and which shouldnt (several of them)
That makes a lot more sense. It eliminates frivolous cases without posing an inherant danger to the legitimate ones.

Capping awards is one of the worst ideas we can do, really...though you do have a point about juries needing to be smarter rather than awarding money based on sympathy. And they need to stop awarding money for colossal insanity; for example, if you cut your leg on a knife lying around someone's house while you're breaking into it, you shouldn't be awarded thousands of dollars in injury fees or whatever. Any jury that awards money to burglars like this should be sued for insanity.

Why is capping awards a bad idea? I, for one, am sick of juries awarding a million dollars to somone because of "emotional suffering". Besides, $250,000 is not pocket change by any stretch of the imagination.

Capping awards is one of the worst ideas we can do, really
I agree. Non-economic suffering? So a guy is confined to a wheelchair for life but doesn't lose his job, and the best he can get 1/4 of a million?

Well, murder is completely different from negligence and should be handled accordingly.Yes, of course it is. My point was about the trust that people put in doctors, which most of the time is absolutely fine, but just occasionally will go horribly, horribly wrong.

Why is capping awards a bad idea? I, for one, am sick of juries awarding a million dollars to somone because of "emotional suffering". Besides, $250,000 is not pocket change by any stretch of the imagination.
its a bad idea because it doesnt address the problem and could hurt people with legit cases

Besides, $250,000 is not pocket change by any stretch of the imagination.
Well, again, in the case of serious disability? Some medico messes up an operation and a guy can't walk again, that's not worth more money? Or worse still, if a patient dies because of negligence, is the value of their life capped at $250,000?

I agree. Non-economic suffering? So a guy is confined to a wheelchair for life but doesn't lose his job, and the best he can get 1/4 of a million?

Good point. However, I don't think the sky should be the limit. Maybe 500,000-750,000?

Also, the insurance company would also have to pay all medical, rehabilitation, and any other costs associated with the injury. So if a person lost his legs and wanted to get a prothesis, the insurance company would be liable for all costs associated with it.

With properly educated juries, I think awards would be much more sensible and a cap would not need to be in place. However, the chances of getting more educated juries are slim to none.