Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Lying Lawyers 16

Journal by pudge

I know, the adjective is redundant.

In WA there's an initiative, I-330. It basically limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits. There's plenty in there to criticize, and no law is perfect.

But the lawyers who oppose I-330 are not content to argue the initiative on its merits. The first thing they did was get their own ballot initiative, I-336, which purports to try to solve the same problem (rising malpractice insurance costs) in a different way: by going after "bad doctors."

And, of course, they were highly deceptive in getting this initiative on the ballot. To people sympathetic to I-330, they made it sound like the two were complentary, taking on different sides of the same issue. To people opposed to I-330, they made it sound like it would solve all the problems I-336 tried, but would fail, to fix.

And to some people, they were even saying to go ahead and vote no on both if they weren't sure about what they were doing, showing their real goal is not to win I-336, but to confuse people enough so I-330 will lose.

Now that the election is only a month away (well, less, now), the anti-I-330 people have stepped it up. Their first TV ad said that "under I-330, you'd be giving up your right to a jury or court trial." This is absoultely false. What I-330 does do is allow arbitration to be an option, that both parties have to agree to.

I know their point is that I-330 allows the health care companies to essentially force arbitration on the consumers. But it's not clear that is true, and what is clear is that the consumer must be clearly notified of this waiver and has the option to not sign. And again, instead of arguing the actual point, they exaggerate to the point of lying. They could have used an accurate wording: "you may be giving up ... ." Instead, the lie, and say, "you would be giving up ... ." They can't help themselves.

And their new ad is even worse. They get a sympathetic case, a guy who is in his 60s or 70s, who had a doctor ruin his trachea, who has had many operations to try to fix it. And he is speaking, and you can barely make out the words, and he says "this $350,000 limit would apply to everyone, no exceptions. Even to someone like me."

But what they do not say is that it only applies to noneconomic damages. Through omission and juxtaposition they intentionally imply that the limit applies to all damages. But no, the limits do not apply to anything economic: "someone like him" would still be able to sue, without limit, for lost wages (actual and future), medical costs, long-term care costs, and so on. "Someone like him" would, if he won the lawsuit, surely receive damages of tens, maybe even hundreds, of millions of dollars.

But what does one expect? Lawyers lie. It's what they do. Especially the malpractice and personal injury breed.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Lying Lawyers More

Lying Lawyers

Comments Filter:
  • I doubt that being limited to economic damages only will force someone like the UWMC to clean up its act when something like the rash of surgical equipment being left in patients from a couple years ago happens again.

    Multi-million dollar punitive damage awards are sometimes the only thing that will wake a large organization up.

    Also, short of criminal conviction it is almost impossible to lose your license to practice medicine in this state.

    Of course all the discussion of malpractice costs fails to get to th
    • Multi-million dollar punitive damage awards are sometimes the only thing that will wake a large organization up.

      Maybe, maybe not. But there definitely are a lot of negative effects that result from the huge punitive awards (a whole industry of sleaziness, etc). Fundamentally I take issue with the whole "make an example out of them" philosophy. It necessarily means that justice in the individual case isn't appropriate. I believe awards & punishments for court cases should only take into considerati

    • Multi-million dollar punitive damage awards are sometimes the only thing that will wake a large organization up.

      While I understand the sentiment, I think this is less of a problem than the alternative (losing lots of good doctors because of high insurance costs), and there are other ways to make them clean up their act, like taking away their licenses.

      Also, short of criminal conviction it is almost impossible to lose your license to practice medicine in this state.

      That's something that should b e fixed sepa
      • While I understand the sentiment, I think this is less of a problem than the alternative (losing lots of good doctors because of high insurance costs), and there are other ways to make them clean up their act, like taking away their licenses.

        Thing is fear of lawsuits does work as a regulatory mechanism. In fact it is one of the reasons that many free-market types used to claim so much government regulation isn't needed.

        While I agree the regulatory mechanisms should be better, the fact is in many cases the o
        • Perhaps by voting for the initative that attempts to crack down on bad doctors?

          There isn't one. I-336 only pretends to attempt to do this.

          Malpractice insurance was never a big cost component of health care so even with dramatic increases it still isn't a big contributor.

          So you're saying all the doctors who end their practices because of high malpractice insurance costs are lying?

          Funny how every 'liablity insurance crisis' has occured during a bear or sideways stock market.

          It didn't. It started before the
          • So you're saying all the doctors who end their practices because of high malpractice insurance costs are lying?

            No, not at all. Just because some doctors are seeing an expense they can no longer cover doesn't mean that it is a major component of overall health care price inflation.

            For one thing an individual doctor or small group practice has very little pricing power or ablity to negotiate lower malpractice rates. A large multi-clinic practice or hospital is much more able to negotiate better terms with hea
            • No, not at all. Just because some doctors are seeing an expense they can no longer cover doesn't mean that it is a major component of overall health care price inflation.

              Right, but this isn't necessarily about the entire industry, it's about the effects on individuals doctors and their patients.

              In any case my main objection to this initiative is I don't think it will do a damn thing to either the cost of malpractice insurance or health care.

              I think it certainly will lower malpractice insurance costs, which
              • I think it certainly will lower malpractice insurance costs, which will help the individual doctors, which is a good thing.

                I don't think such laws have helped malpractice insurance rates in the states that have them.

                Given their track record I am highly skeptical whenever the insurance industry clams some law will help lower insurance rates.
  • Some identified rising medical cost trends are, but not limited to,

    1. Advancement of disease/cancer management
    a) detection test
    b) eradication/control (medicine/radiation)
    1) hit-miss medical trials (MOST EXPENSIVE)
    2) research (expensive)
    3) Distribution (cheaper)
    4) FDA-Approval (getting cheaper,
  • The issue as conservatives see it is that GOOD Doctors are being forced out of the profession thanks to Lawyers.

    The issue as liberals see it is that even if a good Doctor is good 99.9999% of the time, if they ever mess up, they should be nailed to the wall.

    The way I see it, either way, the Lawyers make a killing. The people who bring about these lawsuits, don't generally have the money to withhold a retainer, so they agree to giver the lawyers a large portion of the cut. The lawyer washes them through exp
    • The issue as conservatives see it is that GOOD Doctors are being forced out of the profession thanks to Lawyers.

      The issue as liberals see it is that even if a good Doctor is good 99.9999% of the time, if they ever mess up, they should be nailed to the wall.

      The way I see it, either way, the Lawyers make a killing.

      No, it's not the laywer's. It's the insurance companies. Most cases don't go to trial. And if they do, very, very few are not won by the insurance companies.

      Sure you hear about some big reward given
  • ...in 2004, except that the lawyers targeted the insurance companies instead of the doctors. Fortunately, their Question 4 [state.nv.us] and Question 5 [state.nv.us] failed, while Keep Our Doctors In Nevada [state.nv.us] initiative passed.

    What do you call 1000 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?

    1. Not enough sand.
    2. A good start.

  • Lawyers (Score:2)

    by ces ( 119879 ) *
    But what does one expect? Lawyers lie. It's what they do. Especially the malpractice and personal injury breed.

    According to a friend who is a personal injury attorney, insurance companies are worse liars.

    Now AFAIK he pretty much only handles auto accident claims. Most of his work boils down to getting insurance companies to honor their contracts and helping the claimants assert their rights (which most people aren't aware they have).

    Most of the settlements he negotiates (and most cases are settled) aren't h
    • According to a friend who is a personal injury attorney, insurance companies are worse liars.

      I am not defending the insurance business here. It's unfortunate that we have to pick sides between them. :-) But that's why I am focusing on the doctors, who are the ones who get screwed, and -- by proxy, also getting screwed -- the consumers.
  • Wait a sec - it's the politicians who've proposed the legislation right?

    I fail to see why you've titled this "lying lawyers".

    Yes, they do lie, just like everyone else on the globe.

    Is it because a group of laywers is backing each initiative?

    Anyway, we've had similar legislation come up here in Ohio. And we had a ton of similar, misleading commercials all about it. And it's all BS. The people behind these things, from my perspective, is the insurance companies. They are the one spreading BS, or atleast fundin
    • Wait a sec - it's the politicians who've proposed the legislation right?

      No. There are two citizen initiatives. One is I-330, proposed primarily by doctors and insurers. The other is I-336, proposed entirely by trial lawyers. Now, I don't trust insurance companies either, but the doctors, I mostly do. :-)

Slashdot Top Deals

Kill Ugly Processor Architectures - Karl Lehenbauer

Close