Loophole, (11/9/2009 10:19:22 AM)

Guess this was one of those "frivolous" medical cases everybody seems to be trying to abolish with "caps" and "reforms."

Lance-a-lot, Tulsa (11/9/2009 10:35:44 AM)

Nope, not this one. This is not "frivilous" ... maybe not woth $18 million, but I would probably be doing the same thing if I was in the Shinn's place. You can't put a price tag on your own child. The nurse was obviously negligent here.

However, what I WOULD like to see abolished through meaningful tort reform are the truly frivilous cases. You know, the one where the 400lb. alcoholic / diabetic that loses his leg because of his condition sues the doctor for "malpractice". Like the doctor could actually DO something about the condition.

Sometimes, people get very sick, sometimes bad things happen, sometimes people DIE. It is not always (almost never, in fact) the fault of the doctor. The doctor is TRYING to fix you / save your life. The doctor did NOT cause you to get in the condition you are in.

When patients families start bringing in cameras and tape recorders and record the names of everyone who enters the room...you KNOW they are planning a get rich quick scheme. They can smell the money, and are looking for an excuse to sue.

Quit being so sue happy you freaking people!

myownguy, Tulsa (11/9/2009 3:04:23 PM)

The lawyers win again!!!

FUTURE WORLD, Tulsa (11/9/2009 10:47:09 PM)

No harm no foul. Time to pay up.

Elusive, the burbs (11/9/2009 11:31:27 PM)

That is so sad what they did to this child. This is what concerns me about tort reform although I do think the amount was excessive. Had the child lived and had disabilities his entire life a large judgement is needed.

Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/10/2009 8:57:01 AM)

Would it have been a stronger case if the Judge had had an opponent? It's horrible case of negligence but is 18 million over the top? I think so, in light of how it occurred, I don't believe the Hospital had a lot of control over what the employee did. Unless of course their were circumstances we aren't aware of.

Ignatz, A nice place where Democrats hold every office in the County. (11/10/2009 9:14:10 AM)

This is the exact kind of case "tort reform" is meant to affect. Remember, its sole purpose is to eliminate or severely limit recovery in catastrophic injuries of obvious negligence. In Texas the plaintiff would have recovered only $350,000.00, if that. The term "frivolous" is sujective and there is no way in the world to sort out cases you personally don't believe should be filed from what an aggrieved party believes has caused them harm.Hobbs....a hospital employee IS the hospital.

Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/10/2009 9:39:55 AM)

Ignatz...I agree with you and I strongly believe that putting a cap like Texas is way out of line. My belief is that the Hospital did something to cause that size award...in addition to the horrible thing the employee did.

Remember the McDonald award for the ladies hot coffee the right always uses as a reason for tort reform..McDonalds had been warned twice about their coffee being 185' They right seems to always leave that out of the argument. Might be something like that in this case for an award of 18 million.

Hobbs, Loveland, Co (11/10/2009 2:53:12 PM)

Dusty...You keep on alienating the right.

I too agree with you on the award of 18M for the child was entirely too much. I agree with your solution and what should have bee awarded I don't know where the line should be drawn but it sure isn't and 350k like in Texas.

But when there is negligence on the scale of Ford's Pinto blowing up and you have and you have willfully ignoring negligent products or denying contracts...they need to pay out the nose. That's why I'm not for tort reform. Would you agree to some tweaking?