Don’t deny people access to the courts
With all the recent calls again for so-called “tort reform” from the likes of those with vested interests in limiting accountability and responsibility for wrongdoing, like Todd Akin and politicians that protect big insurance and big business, I actually sat down and read the U.S. Constitution, and the Missouri and Illinois State Constitutions.
I found noticeably absent in all three of these grand documents, drafted by the founding fathers of our country and our two great states, any mention or even inference that insurance companies, product manufacturers or health care providers that cause harm should receive special protections in the judiciary – meaning special protections from lawsuits when they do harm to the public; and by the public I mean consumers that bought their products and patients and their families that trusted them to “first do no harm.”
I did, however, find in each and every one of these documents clear and unequivocal language granting the citizenry of this country and these two states a constitutional right to access to the courts to seek redress of perceived wrongs. This means that each U.S., Missouri and Illinois citizen has the constitutionally-protected right to file a lawsuit and have a jury of the citizens of the community in which the case is brought see the evidence, hear the testimony of witnesses presented by each side, and ultimately render a full and final judgment on the merits of each particular case. What could be more American?
The perception that civil juries are out of control, or simply aren’t smart enough to recognize and decide complex issues like what constitutes medical malpractice or what constitutes a dangerous and defective product, first wrongly assumes that the people in our communities that perform their civic duty and serve on local juries are dumb.
Second, it also wrongly assumes that local juries routinely hand out “lawsuit lottery” mega-verdicts. If you have ever served on a civil jury, or have watched civil jury trial, you would know that those two assumptions are false. They are based more in myth, with little or no facts or data to back them up. And interestingly, those assumptions are generally perpetuated by parties or organizations that are on the wrong end of a jury verdict where the local jury that heard the evidence and saw the witnesses and found that party or organization had seriously harmed another.
If corporations and health care providers want to protect themselves against lawsuits then I suggest they focus on providing safer products and better quality, patient-oriented care. When they start doing that, fewer people will be injured or killed, and fewer folks will feel that they have no choice but to seek redress in the civil court system.
Christopher A. Wright
Webster Groves
Christopher A. Wright,
Does that mean that the Tort Reform laws currently on the books in Missouri are Unconstitutional? Didn’t those lawmakers in Jefferson City read the Missouri Constitution? Didn’t they read their own tort reform bill?
Ironic Hypocrisy.
The mere threat of lawsuits causes doctors to be overly cautious and request extra, unneeded tests. Add in the extra insurance costs to cover lawsuit abuse and we have defined part, but not all, of the problem. To deny this is part of the problem is to deny reality and be driven by your own, overbearing ideology.
It’s almost comical to hear the lawsuit appologists complain about the Repubs being in big pharma’s hip pocket when the Dims are wholy-owned by the trial lawyers. Can you please pull that log out of your own eye first?
Shtaven,
I understand the problems faced by physicians paying a full third of their earnings on malpractice insurance, but they’ve allowed the courts to police their ranks with lawsuits instead of policing their own. I can tell you of one particular doctor, in St. Charles County, who changed his location and office five times, each time he was running from the stigma of a lawsuit for malpractice, until finally his license was pulled.
One man’s frivolous lawsuit is another man’s plea for justice.
If a doctor performs an unnecessary test, such violates the Hippocratic oath and subjects the license of that doctor to sanction. However, very few doctors ever suffer any sanction from the various state licensing authorities because they are run by doctors. Fewer than 5% of doctors cause over 50% of medical carelessness, injury to innocent patients caused by no fault of their own. If the medical profession were as keen to get rid of bad doctors as they are to strip away consumers’ rights, we’d have the best healthcare in the world, not No. 37.
It is clear that over 50,000 people die each year from preventable infections which they get in hospitals, some say that’s how County Executive Buzz Westfall died. America lost onluy 55,000 of our soldiers in the Vietnam War, where’s the outrage over the careless carnage wrought upon America by carelss medical providers who kill consumers through no fault of the consumer except they trusted themselves to those providers! Very few lawsuits are filed or won on this issue because the status of hospital care is so poor that it is now argued by them that such infections are part of the know risks of healthcare being provided to consumers. The last time I had surgery in March, 2009, the hospital got me out of there in less than 24 hours so as to avoid infection (I went as fast as I could!).
So when you look at healthcare and its costs, don’t pick on those which are harmed or killed through no fault of their own. Look also to the fact that such costs in their entirety make up less than .01% of the national healthcare budget. So-called tort “reform” is just another Big Lie by insurers to make sure they don’t have top pay out on the very risks they insure. Isurance reform is what’s needed and leave innocent consumers alone!
What about the other constituional rights “The Messiah” and his crooks are trying to trample on?
The award in a law suit is only part of the cost. Just ask the lawyer Timmy Fruitcake Hogan, how much the legal fees, he and his liberal trial lawyer ambulance chasers receive per hour. $300 to $700 per hour sound about right? Millions in legal fees, even if you win.
Mag-
I thought YOU were in favor of capitalism ?
BTW, isn’t it just socialism to let the government decide if I can sue, and how much I can collect ?
HKCHAS
I have no problems with a legitimate lawsuit. It is the frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the costs. Change the rules to loser pays, most of the frivolous lawsuits will go away. You know, like the lady suing Mickey D’s for burning herself, after she put a cup of hot coffee between her legs after going throught the drive through.
Hey, but we had a legitimate lawsuit against a developer. Yet the circuit court, the appellate court and the Mo supreme court all refused to hear us. We never even made it into court. After 3 years of legal work.
But spill coffee in your crotch and you get heard. What a system.
A couple of points to ponder. And, by the way, I have no problem with an individual going to court to seek redress of their grievances, however common sense should play a role.
1. What dollar figure will bring back a deceased person? There is none. So why do we leave an open checkbook for the lawyers? Why not put some common sense limits on the damages that can be awarded?
2. If the liberals out there are so hot to limit the bonuses that CEO’s can have, why do we not limit the bonuses that an attorney can recieve? An attorney will get paid regardless of the outcome of a lawsuit, if they lose then they get paid their regular wages, if they win they get 35 to 45% of the damages awarded. For those of you who are mathematically challenged that is $350,000 to $450,000 out of every $1 million. So why not limit that?
3. Finally, I believe that Government (whether State or Federal) should be a party of the defense in any medical malpractice lawsuit. After all, the FDA approves all drugs used in this country and the State licenses all Doctors and Nurses and is responsible for their actions.
Just a few things to think about.
Mags–
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htmnd
why don’t you think this woman has a right to sue ?