User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: What does tort reform mean and are you for or against it?

  1. #31
    Points: 174,786, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,864
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,099
    Points
    174,786
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    It also depends on the age and earning potential of the victim.
    In the wrongful death of a child, unless they are providing economic support, their earning potential is not relevant. As far as I know, Breonna had no children and wasn't supporting her parents financially. That means that the settlement was comprised entirely of non-economic damages and perhaps punitive damages - no breakdown provided.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Dr. Who For This Useful Post:

    Peter1469 (09-17-2020)

  3. #32
    Points: 174,786, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,864
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,099
    Points
    174,786
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter1469 View Post
    Appeals courts knock high judgements down frequently.
    Yes, I mentioned that. However, the reduced judgments are often still very high.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  4. #33
    Points: 174,786, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,864
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,099
    Points
    174,786
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Some interesting statistics on tort reform:

    Texas: The Lone Star state has become the poster child for tort reform. Litigation, paid claims, and premiums have been slashed in half after sweeping reforms were passed in 2003. Applications for Texas licenses have surged and the malpractice payout per capita (at $3.03) is now the lowest in the country [68].

    Ohio: Litigation has dropped 41% statewide over the years following the enactment of transformative reforms in 2004 [66].

    Pennsylvania: Reforms were passed in 2003, including (1) a case certification requirement, and (2) venue reform [63]. In the last 10 years, medical malpractice case filings have decreased 44% in the state (and they’re down 65% in Philadelphia) [63].

    Mississippi: Since passing strong reforms in 2004 (a hard $500,000 cap on non-economic damages and a case certification requirement), liability insurance costs have dropped nearly 50 percent and the number of lawsuits have fallen 70 percent [35].

    North Carolina: The state passed vigorous reforms in 2011 (a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages and an enhanced burden of proof for EMTALA providers) [35]. North Carolina’s per capita malpractice payout ($4.55 malpractice dollars per person) is now the seventh lowest in the nation [36].
    https://epmonthly.com/article/the-me...e-report-card/


    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  5. #34

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Some interesting statistics on tort reform:

    Texas: The Lone Star state has become the poster child for tort reform. Litigation, paid claims, and premiums have been slashed in half after sweeping reforms were passed in 2003. Applications for Texas licenses have surged and the malpractice payout per capita (at $3.03) is now the lowest in the country [68].

    Ohio: Litigation has dropped 41% statewide over the years following the enactment of transformative reforms in 2004 [66].

    Pennsylvania: Reforms were passed in 2003, including (1) a case certification requirement, and (2) venue reform [63]. In the last 10 years, medical malpractice case filings have decreased 44% in the state (and they’re down 65% in Philadelphia) [63].

    Mississippi: Since passing strong reforms in 2004 (a hard $500,000 cap on non-economic damages and a case certification requirement), liability insurance costs have dropped nearly 50 percent and the number of lawsuits have fallen 70 percent [35].

    North Carolina: The state passed vigorous reforms in 2011 (a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages and an enhanced burden of proof for EMTALA providers) [35]. North Carolina’s per capita malpractice payout ($4.55 malpractice dollars per person) is now the seventh lowest in the nation [36].
    https://epmonthly.com/article/the-me...e-report-card/


    I think most lawyers would tell you Robinson is more responsible than reform.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  6. #35
    Points: 174,786, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,864
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,099
    Points
    174,786
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    I think most lawyers would tell you Robinson is more responsible than reform.
    While it is a very good decision for the insurance defense bar, I believe Robinson only addresses the issue of collateral sources, which doesn't impact non-economic loss. Since you have tort reform in Ohio that has addressed non-economic loss in med mal cases, hasn't it produced a reduction in terms of the overall size of awards or settlements?
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  7. #36

    tPF Moderator
    Points: 473,135, Level: 100
    Level completed: 0%, Points required for next Level: 0
    Overall activity: 69.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsTagger First ClassYour first GroupVeteranRecommendation First ClassOverdrive
    Awards:
    Master Tagger
    DGUtley's Avatar tPF Moderator
    Karma
    200769
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northeast Ohio
    Posts
    52,922
    Points
    473,135
    Level
    100
    Thanks Given
    17,060
    Thanked 46,039x in 24,874 Posts
    Mentioned
    886 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    While it is a very good decision for the insurance defense bar, I believe Robinson only addresses the issue of collateral sources, which doesn't impact non-economic loss. Since you have tort reform in Ohio that has addressed non-economic loss in med mal cases, hasn't it produced a reduction in terms of the overall size of awards or settlements?
    No. Robinson is an evidentiary issue not a collateral source issue.

    I think Robinson has contributed more.
    Any time you give a man something he doesn't earn, you cheapen him. Our kids earn what they get, and that includes respect. -- Woody Hayes​

  8. #37
    Points: 52,081, Level: 55
    Level completed: 76%, Points required for next Level: 469
    Overall activity: 0.2%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran50000 Experience Points
    jet57's Avatar Banned
    Karma
    2378
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Posts
    19,121
    Points
    52,081
    Level
    55
    Thanks Given
    1,698
    Thanked 2,368x in 2,004 Posts
    Mentioned
    284 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    In all respects? What do you think is a reasonable award for non-economic damages or punitive damages?
    More later; thanks for the subject, but I would say that award is directly dependent upon any type of say "violation" of safety, malpractice, malicious ignoring of possible in jury etc.

  9. #38
    Points: 174,786, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,864
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,099
    Points
    174,786
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by DGUtley View Post
    No. Robinson is an evidentiary issue not a collateral source issue.

    I think Robinson has contributed more.
    OK, Robinson resulted in insurance companies only compensating the amount that was actually paid rather than the value of the surgery/medical care, on paper. I guess Ohio wasn't given to making large awards for non-economic damages in med mal cases.

    It does appear that there have been record breaking awards in personal injury cases, however - for example Kiara E. Torres, et al., v. Concrete Designs Inc., et al in 2014, where the jury awarded Rojas $26.4 million dollars in non-economic damages and $8.2 million dollars in economic damages, for a total verdict of $34.6 million dollars. The jury also returned a verdict for Plaintiff Torres in the amount of $1.8 million dollars in economic damages and $6 million in non-economic damages for a total award of $7.8 million dollars.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

  10. #39
    Points: 143,765, Level: 91
    Level completed: 20%, Points required for next Level: 2,885
    Overall activity: 79.0%
    Achievements:
    Social50000 Experience PointsOverdriveVeteran
    carolina73's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    43655
    Join Date
    Sep 2019
    Posts
    57,490
    Points
    143,765
    Level
    91
    Thanks Given
    56,067
    Thanked 43,660x in 28,248 Posts
    Mentioned
    154 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Dr. Who View Post
    Tort reform means laws designed to reduce litigation. The laws generally focus on a specific industry, such as the medical profession. While most tort reform in the U.S. has been enacted by the states, some has been passed by the federal government.

    Tort reform is a contentious issue. Proponents are typically businesses, trade organizations, insurance companies, medical providers, or politicians. Critics are often medical patients, consumer groups, trial lawyers, or legal scholars.



    Tort reform has its favorable and unfavorable characteristics. Both sides have their merits, and it's worth considering the arguments on each side, summarized below:



    Favorable:

    • Preserves laws needed to prevent hurtful and abusive practices against businesses.
    • Prevents lawyers from clogging the legal system with too many frivolous lawsuits
    • Prevents lawsuits that are too costly and keeps product liability and medical malpractice insurance costs from escalating.

    Unfavorable:

    • Critics contend the laws won't fix the problems that led to the initial lawsuits
    • It could limit the ability of people to get justice for their injuries.
    • It will penalize those who can't afford legal counsel.
    • It will lower potential damage awards and disincentivize attorneys from helping financially disadvantaged victims.
    https://www.thebalancesmb.com/how-to...siness-4152126


    I was prompted to post this based on the $12M award in the Breonna Taylor case. Proponents of tort reform are seeking both to reduce the excessive if not frivolous civil litigation that has become the bread and butter of class action and personal injury attorneys and also seeks to put a cap on non-economic damages (i.e. damages for pain & suffering, inconvenience, hurt feelings etc.) on the basis that money does not alleviate grief or bad feelings. This does not mean that plaintiffs can't be awarded damages for psychological therapy or things of that nature. Other aspects of tort reform include caps on punitive damages, limitations on contingency fees, elimination of joint and several liability (where one party can be held liable for damages assessed against a group of co-defendants) and other items that you can find at the link.


    What is your opinion?
    You ruined it. You asked the question and then gave me the answer.

    Here's the deal. I get sued for asbestos.
    Never had asbestos in our building, never used it in products.
    It doesn't matter.
    If someone in a steel mill, automotive plant, aerospace company... gets mesothelioma and joins a tort suit or brings an action as an individual. They sue everyone that ever supplied a product that the customer used in any of his work areas. Sometimes we get sued by the same firms that we had to fight before. It costs us about $10 to 20 grand to get out of each law suit plus the time on pulling up the information on decades old orders and have to produce every record.
    We don't get any help from the insurance company because no insurance company will cover you for asbestos or silica.

    So we get to pay lawyers to do nothing but write letters that we never had or used asbestos.

    What the tort lawyers want is not only to find a possible guilty party but to attempt to squeeze a settlements out of each and every one of the 100s of companies being sued. We are all told they have to prove we are innocent. They do not even have to think we are guilty to cost us significant amounts of money.

    BTW, most companies are S-Corps or LLCs, as we are and that money comes right out of our pockets. It is not just the evil big corporation that they are suing.

    Please try to justify that system to me.

  11. #40
    Points: 174,786, Level: 99
    Level completed: 29%, Points required for next Level: 2,864
    Overall activity: 22.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteranTagger First Class50000 Experience Points
    Dr. Who's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    870670
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Gallifrey
    Posts
    69,099
    Points
    174,786
    Level
    99
    Thanks Given
    12,829
    Thanked 12,933x in 8,811 Posts
    Mentioned
    206 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by carolina73 View Post
    You ruined it. You asked the question and then gave me the answer.

    Here's the deal. I get sued for asbestos.
    Never had asbestos in our building, never used it in products.
    It doesn't matter.
    If someone in a steel mill, automotive plant, aerospace company... gets mesothelioma and joins a tort suit or brings an action as an individual. They sue everyone that ever supplied a product that the customer used in any of his work areas. Sometimes we get sued by the same firms that we had to fight before. It costs us about $10 to 20 grand to get out of each law suit plus the time on pulling up the information on decades old orders and have to produce every record.
    We don't get any help from the insurance company because no insurance company will cover you for asbestos or silica.

    So we get to pay lawyers to do nothing but write letters that we never had or used asbestos.

    What the tort lawyers want is not only to find a possible guilty party but to attempt to squeeze a settlements out of each and every one of the 100s of companies being sued. We are all told they have to prove we are innocent. They do not even have to think we are guilty to cost us significant amounts of money.

    BTW, most companies are S-Corps or LLCs, as we are and that money comes right out of our pockets. It is not just the evil big corporation that they are suing.

    Please try to justify that system to me.
    I hear you. I had a lot of insurance claims for mesothelioma as well as class actions for asbestos that pulled in every industry that had products that contained any amount of asbestos.

    I have sympathy for all of the workers negligently exposed to asbestos on the job. For instance, a lot of people in the construction industry many years back who were involved with renovating old buildings that contained asbestos were inhaling the stuff on a daily basis and despite the fact that many of their employers had been warned of the dangers, they didn't bother to offer their employees any protection - no breathing gear, no special clothing - nothing. By the time these employees retired they were developing mesothelioma. The same goes for a lot of auto mechanics and brake technicians. I think people who were unknowingly and negligently exposed to asbestos dust, deserve compensation.

    On the other hand, there are class action lawsuits out there naming defendants whose products never caused anyone illness or whose employees were never exposed to asbestos dust at their places of employment and are being forced to defend themselves unnecessarily. Class action counsel often take a shot gun approach to this kind of litigation and I think that it's very wrong. They should have to provide some direct evidence that a defendant's business or products exposed anyone to asbestos dust before they can name them as defendants.
    In quoting my post, you affirm and agree that you have not been goaded, provoked, emotionally manipulated or otherwise coerced into responding.



    "The difference between what we do and what we are capable of doing would suffice to solve most of the world’s problems.”
    Mahatma Gandhi

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts