Eagle 4, Tulsa (2/23/2009 7:16:52 AM)

Very good, Rabon, a well-placed shot across the bow of the SS John Birch!

jhill, Tulsa (2/23/2009 7:21:11 AM)

Skepticism in the face of self-proclaimed reform is always a good idea.

St. Nik, (2/23/2009 7:35:14 AM)

"negligent(but heavily insured) doctor" A few doctors are guilty of negligence, however the protection the competent ones need in form of liabilty is crippling. The lawyers win and the insurace companies win. The consumer is left paying the price. The barrel is spoiled from the 1 bad apple.

Overhead, hmmm?

Hijinx, (2/23/2009 7:39:21 AM)

Good letter Mr. Martin and very true. Are you the same Martin that’s on the back of my phone book? No wait, that’s another guy.

BowlerDave, Tulsa (2/23/2009 8:25:07 AM)

As an insurance broker, I sell coverages to physians, clinics and hospitals.

I don't know about other aspects of life but I can assure you that a large majority of lawsuits against doctors, clinics and hospitals are baseless and are just idiots looking to get paid.

I have an ER physician that has been sued almost 20 times. Why? Because he is an ER physician and people think they can win in a court no matter what.

He has won every single case. But, an insurance company had to pay lawyers and fees on close to 20 cases. That means he can't get insurance from a real company anymore. He has to pay three times what the next physician pays simply because he was sued by idiots looking for a handout.

He has done nothing wrong and yet, he pays well over $100,000 a year for coverage.

I'm all for anything that keeps baseless suits out of the courts and keeps decent hard working people from suffering.

concernedpapa, Kiefer (2/23/2009 8:47:53 AM)

BowlerDave brings up an excellent issue. If the trial lawyers would police their own to remove this type of system abuse then we could have better faith in the system. Unfortunatly it seems we will all continu to pay for unscrupulous members of our society. Be it lawyers, judges, doctors, or politicians.

TonyQ, Tulsa (2/23/2009 9:00:00 AM)

Lawsuit abuse is not a widespread problem. The plutocrats only try to make us think it is in order to enact laws that shelter them from risk. All part of the corporate socialism the supposed free market loving Republicans are champions of. Anecdotes of abuse is no reason to chip away at the fundamental right to sue for grievances.

BowlerDave, Tulsa (2/23/2009 9:27:34 AM)

If you are harmed, or truly believe you are harmed, I fully back your right to sue. And while I do believe you should receive sufficient compensation, no one should receive $2Mil because they removed the lid, stuck hot coffee between their legs and drove over a bump.

And to be honest, yes, lawsuit abuse is pretty rampant in the healthcare industry.

Just like everything else, we need a middle ground. Not something that makes it impossible to sue, but not something that awards every person that says they were wronged, whether they were or not.

But in politics, we never get a middle ground, it usually leans one way or the other.

Grumpy, Okmulgee (2/23/2009 10:21:26 AM)

There are other and more effective ways to discourage frivolous lawsuits. The first and best is legislation easing the way for defendants to go after the plaintiff's lawyer to recoup legal costs in the truly frivolous cases. Second, go after the licenses of lawyers who repeatedly file frivolous lawsuits.

Hijinx, (2/23/2009 10:28:05 AM)

$2 million award is the jury’s fault for rewarding stupidity. Agreed that there is abuse but you cant just throw out the baby with the bath water

Ignatz, Broken Bow (2/23/2009 10:33:29 AM)

No one has ever collected $2 million for spilled coffee. Insurance people love to rile folks up with that old lie. What was it, 15 years ago in some other state an old lady got scalded by McDonald's coffee? I believe on remittature she got $150,000.00 less fees and costs. What does one case out of hundreds of thousands filed have anything to do with taking away the rights of truly injured people?

Angry Citizen!, Bluejacket (2/23/2009 11:11:15 AM)

Thanks for the good insight, the judicial and legislative branch are not seperate entities.

The Reaper, Hells Gate (2/23/2009 11:28:29 AM)

Ignatz............ $150,000.00 split it down the middle 50 50 the lawyer gets $75,000 the victim gets $75,000 less fees and cost, filing fees,witness fees,and correct me on this one if I'm wrong but basically everything but the law firms time, plus medical expenses which by the way you described her injuries the cost would have added up pretty good, and what was left goes to the victim.
By no means do I want to limit a person's access to the court system my only problem is the split of the settlement. Like I stated before I personally know lawyers in another taste that has the 20 to 33 percent law and they are doing quiet well, when I first met them 20 yrs ago it was only the 2 of them and their wives in the firm, now they have 5 offices in 2 states and over 60 employees, most all their cases are on a contingency fee.

I'm not for a law limiting what you can charge on a hourly rate, so how about instead of charging a contingency fee you open a loan office and loan these people the money to pay by the hour , and they don't have to pay back till the case is settled and a clause that if the case is lost the loan doesn't have to be repaid.

Just my thoughts on the matter, and just one more example for you concerning the government limiting what I can earn, every bite they take out of the Davis Bacon Act.

Ayo, T-Town (2/23/2009 11:47:56 AM)

BowlerDave, I use to work as an assistant to the Risk Manager of a hospital. I understand there are many bogus lawsuits, but there are also plenty of cases of negligence. I most certainly DO NOT trust the insurance companies to do what's right.

Now, if your son loses 1/3 of the tip of his penis during a circumcision what would you do?

If your wife contracts a communicable disease due to staff not following universal precautions what would you do?

I happen to know many little boo boo's are never know to the patient.

I understand the difficulty of the OB/GYN doctor who can barely afford insurance coverage due to the frivolous suits, but the insurance companies also won't do what's right.

That door swings BOTH WAYS.

James Young, Tulsa, Austin, Temecula (2/23/2009 12:08:42 PM)

The McDonald’s coffee case [Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants, P.T.S., Inc., No. D-202 CV-93-02419, 1995 WL 360309 (Bernalillo County, N.M. Dist. Ct. Aug. 18, 1994)] is often cited as the poster child of tort reform but just as frequently omits that McDonalds had been warned repeatedly that their required coffee temperature (180-190 degrees) could and had caused third-degree burns and that they had already paid out damages resulting from coffee burns. Also omitted is the fact that McDonalds refused at least twice to settle for a far smaller amount and insisted on going to court.

Often, the only way to get corporations to pay attention to anything or any behavior that they deem might harm their net income and EPS is to actually reduce their net income. If organizations or individual providers of products and services refuse to take actual responsibility for their actions and refuse to correct dangerous behavior, they must be held legally responsible.

Tort reform is just a strawman to divert attention from providers’ bad behavior.

quixote, Tulsa (2/23/2009 12:29:54 PM)

BowlerDave,

Your first post is more of an indictment of insurance companies than lawyers. Google the McDonald coffee burn case for yourself and you'll see confirmation of what others have posted here.

Ignatz, Broken Bow (2/23/2009 12:46:44 PM)

My View, lawyers get disbarred for loaning money to clients.We are not allowed to assume that kind of a financial interest in the outcome of a settlement. 99% of all personal injury cases are worth far less than a million dollars (avg. jury award is $24,000.00 nationwide).Limiting fees to 1/3 obviously wouldn't discourage anyone from filing a case worth $24,000, but the 20% is to discourage filing in serious injury (brain damaged, permanently crippled, death) cases. Oklahoma malpractice insurance carriers force all cases to trial by refusing to settle even the most egregious acts of doctors, knowing that jurors do not want to believe that doctors make mistakes like everybody else. You cannot believe in a free market economy and then arbitrarily limit anyone's right to compete for fees. You cannot believe that the government has no business intruding into free enterprise capitalism and yet restrict a market that potentially affects every one in the State.No one has yet stated why this is a good idea. Only 2% of all cases are "tort" cases, the actual number of cases filed has declined since 2005. These are statistics compiled by Bush Dept. of Justice. Instead, individuals should be asking..."why do I hate lawyers?" "why do I feel people shouldn't be compensated for injuries caused by others?" why do I feel the government should protect those responsible for injurying others to avoid accepting full responsibility for their wrongful actions?" "why do I mistrust 12 people, just like me, to hear evidence and reach a just verdict?"

BowlerDave, Tulsa (2/23/2009 1:05:48 PM)

I know she didn't get the $2Mil. But she got much more than she should have. Basically, if you are at fault as well, you should share the fault.

Think about it. Even if the coffee was the legal 180 degrees, is it smart to get it near your crotch?

Also, what would I do if my son or wife were injured due to negligence? I would sue. As I said above, if someone is wronged, they have the right to sue.

But we receive notices of suits daily from rural hospitals simply because Cletus needs to save his farm (ooh, I'm gonna get it for that one). If you are hurt, fine sue and hope you get what you deserve. If you need a new playstation, get a job, don't sue.

concernedpapa, Kiefer (2/23/2009 1:13:11 PM)

Ayo
The cases you speak of is of course terrin ble and should be settled fairly. I cant speak for everyine but if the first situation happened to me personnaly I would now be known as granny instead of papa.

TonyQ, Tulsa (2/23/2009 2:17:11 PM)

Lawsuit abuse and voter fraud are two sides of the same coin. Trumped-up anecdotes used in the service of restricting freedom and justice.

redbeard, Stillwater (2/23/2009 10:52:42 PM)

What about the company that cranked out poison peanut butter for our kids to eat?

If you reduce the penalties for this kind of behavior,it will happen more often.

Sorry,but I don't trust corporations to look out for my families' wellbeing.

Ignatz, Broken Bow (2/24/2009 3:02:06 PM)

Chad, you never had a comp case because maximum fee is closer to 20%. Not a single comp client has come forward claiming anyone took their money without their knowledge and consent. When you just make stuff up (like BowlerDave and the 2 million dollar coffee) it means that not a thing you say can be believed.