<font color = lightgreen>It seems like the Texas Legislature and the Governor have finally done something rational--put a limit on awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. In this particular case, a medical provider, a hospital network, and all other providers to limits of $250,000 each, for an absolute maximum of $750,000.

I have seen both sides of this issue. The mother of a friend of mine from college died due to medical malpractice; that kind of loss devastates a family. However, the astronomical amounts that are sometimes awarded punish everyone, because those high limits raise the cost of medical care for everyone and subsequently raise health insurance premiums (the only downside to actuarial practice, let me tell you). Besides, this will help some people who are currently doctors be able to keep their practices, because you wouldn't believe how expensive malpractice insurance can be.</font>

Hogwash. Big business and big government in business together. Benefits insurance companies, not doctors. Try explaining to that woman in Wisconsin who had a double mastectomy when the names were jumbled that you can put a dollar limit on that suffering for a lifetime.

Smarter legislation would target punitive damages and NOT restrict them, but rather restrict plaintiffs from recovering them (rather, send the punitive damages damages to legal aid). Smarter legislation would cap the amounts insurers can charge doctors. Smarter legislation would make plaintiffs and lawyers cough up money or do jail time (contempt of court) for bringing frivolous claims.

What you have done now is allow the medical profession to know the exact dollar amount it can use when accounting for human life. When Worker's Comp was passed, industry supported it because while it gave an absolute right to recovery to workers, it limited the amounts recoverable to their wages. Employers nationwide used it as an excuse to treat employees as guinea pigs, sending them off to all kinds of horrible fates. It in effect forced the government to create OSHA. Now doctors can do the same with patients.

Dr. 1: "What about that experimental surgery, it may work here."
Dr. 2: "Highly controversial, very risky. And, never been tried."
Dr. 1: "Great, I can smell the awards and grant money already. What do we care, it can't cost us more that $750K."

<font color = lightgreen>I don't disagree with some of your comments. Doctors/health providers should be made accountable when mistakes are made, but this is still a step in the right direction.

Unfortunately, we landed on different sides of the issue. I come from the insurance side, where limits on payouts is a good thing because that improves the future position of the insurers. Besides, there are too many people who are too willing to sue at the drop of a hat in this nation as it is.</font>

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Timber...ummm you say, think of the lady who received the double mastectomy and how she feels when discussing caps on punative damages....
and then turn around and say...the people who suffer don't get to collect those damages...bit of a double standard there?

I think it is reasonable to cap punative damages and just make sure that the amoutn going to the victim is enough to ensure that they are well and fully compensated for mistakes that were made on them.....geez I wish I could sue my auto-mechanic for not making my car repairs last longer....</font>

MagiK, I only want to take Punitives from her. There are different "damages." The amount she gets in "pain and suffering damages" should adequately cover her suffering -- to be decided by the jury. But the $60 million McDonald's smack-downs are PUNITIVE -- they are to punish the wrongdoer not remedy the plaintiff. They are, by their very nature, over and above the "suffering and pain." That is why it makes perfect sense to take them away from plaintiffs.

Let "pain and suffering," "economic loss," "loss of income," "loss of consortium" and other damages adequately reflect what they are to remedy -- and don't limit them. But, set these "punitive" damages aside for the public good, since letting the plaintiff get them is merely a windfall.

Azred, I don't understand wanting to "improve the future position of insurers." To me it sounds like "improve the future position of lawyers." Why should society want to lend us professionals a helping hand? Don't we screw them enough already?

<font face="COMIC Sans MS" size="3" color="#7c9bc4">
Just thought I would say, I think punative damages should be limited, but maybe 250k is too low, Perhaps it should be based on a percentage of annual income of the defendant? but I also think those punative damages could go to pay legal fees and do other positive thigns and not be pocketed by attournys or plaintiffs. </font>

[ 06-12-2003, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

If you're going to limit punitives, you must base it on a % of the defendant company's yearly profits or the defendant person's annual salary. Since it is meant to PUNISH, it must be a greater amount for McDonald's than it would be for me. $250K would devastate me. $250K would not be noticed by McD's.