Sorry...don't mean for this thread to be ridiculously exclusionary...but to the lawyers out there.. what do you think of HB4?? Have you taken any CLE courses on it yet??? the offer and settlement thing seems nuts. thoughts???
a brief description of what i'm talking about...by the way...THIS WAS NOT SOLELY ABOUT MED MAL CASES AS ADVERTISED WHEN WE VOTED FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT! Offer of Settlement • Provides incentives for parties to make and accept reasonable settlement offers early on in lawsuits in order to reduce the overall cost of litigation on all parties and the court system • If a plaintiff refuses an offer that turns out to be as good as or better than what the plaintiff ultimately wins, the plaintiff will be responsible for the defendant’s litigation costs, including attorneys’ fees, after the offer was made. This award of litigation costs can only be an offset against whatever the plaintiff recovers against the defendant and is, therefore, capped at the amount the plaintiff recovers • Settlement incentives will benefit all parties including individuals, small businesses, and others who find themselves in litigation by helping them settle the litigation early and thereby avoid the often very great expense associated with simply litigating the case
This provision, like most of HB4, will only help the big insurance companies' profit margin, and not the average consumer, small business owner, or doctor. It is a step towards the British "loser pay" system, and will further scare Plaintiff attorneys from agreeing to take the cases of individuals with legitimate claims or injuries. Curious to note that med mal rates are yet to drop. If you think the insurance companies will pass their increased profits along to the doctors in the form of reduced rates, you are as deluded as the rest of the public that was conned by the insurance lobby into voting for this bill.
Should I be feeling sympathy for these trial lawyers who lose out as a result of the proposition passing? Because I don't. Poor, poor lawyers. What a shame it is that they have to consider what is in the public's best interest, instead of their personal bank account's best interest! How will they ever pay the bills, now that this heinous bill has been passed? How will Jim Adler's 'victims' ever make it if they can't get more than $500,000 in non-economic damages? (note there is no cap on economic damages) Their world is ruined! Oh, and as an FYI -- I knew that the bill was not only about med mal. You should have too. The information was out there.
Typical. You are so pursuaded by the insurance lobby's propaganda that you can't even see straight. Firstly, if you really think that Jim Adlers' clients get anywhere near $500,000 in non economic damages, you're nuts. Most of these cases are MUCH smaller in overall scope. The average car wreck case settles for 1.5 to 2 times medicals. Secondly, you must understand the dual purpose of tort law. One goal is to compensate the plaintiff for what they have lost. No problem as far as I can tell. The other goal is to provide a disincentive to future torts. Uh oh. Do you really think that a itsy bitsy judgment is going to discourage a large company from doing anything? If you do, then I recommend that you spend some quality time in this little place I call reality. You want to talk big about what is best for consumers. Great. So do I. It is NOT in the best interest of consumers to install a system in which legitimate yet small claims will not be able to be brought. Why not? Because they will not find a lawyer who will take the case on a contingent fee basis. Being as most people out there cannot afford an attorney on an hourly basis, they will not bring their case at all. Congrats Trader...you've bnallyhood a system in which large companies can tort with impunity. Now if you want to bring in a loser pays system, you have created a de facto economic bar to the courthouse door. NO ordinary person will bring even a legitimate claim if they run the risk of having to pay thousands in the other side's legal fees should a jury not decide in their favor. Too much of a risk. I'm not a trial lawyer and I think this law sucks. I also think you do not understand the issues. You can go back to being Rick Perry's lapdog now.
I would just like to interject some sanity into this discussion; Rick Perry is a ****ing ****. Steve Perry would make a better governor. Hold on Sherry.
My cat, Perry, would make a better governor. If I had a cat named Perry. Until then, my cat Stella would do just fine.
Welcome to the far-right world of Rick Perry, Craddick and company, my friend. Time to wake up and smell the coffee. The doctors, the consumers and the lawyers who don't work for the law firms who service the big corporations that benefited by this legislation got hosed. And George W. Bush is now making this same bogus BS a big part of his re-election campaign. Bush is trying to screw the country like our wacked out and bought Republican leadership did here in Texas. And yes, doctors haven't seen their coverage costs drop at all. The legislation just squeaked by with tons of people screaming highway robbery at the time. If a few more people had been paying attention or just bothered to vote, it never would have passed. Look at who worked to get it passed, Max, and work against them. It's corruption of the highest order.
Jorge, your corporate shill buddies, Ken Lay and gang are growing to appreciate lawyers. Let's hear it for the integrity of financial guys like, Jorge and Arthur Andersen This may be depressing, Jorge, but a lot of the lawyers are doing well in a new field going after the crooked MBA guys from the fancy schools who helped still the savings of ordinary Americans. Jorge and hisnamesake, Goerge in the Whitehouse, don't want security or safety or pollution regs and they don't want lawsuits either. Now we know there associate Tom Delay has an excuse, he inahled too much bug spray since he wasn't going to let som burecrat from da "gubmint" tell him to wear a mask while spraying bug spray, but what is the excuse for George and Jorge? Why do they hate honest finacial transactions, safety and clean air and water? It is wierd.
Jorge, your corporate shill buddies, Ken Lay and gang are growing to appreciate lawyers. Let's hear it for the integrity of financial guys like, Jorge and Arthur Andersen This may be depressing, Jorge, but a lot of the lawyers are doing well in a new field going after the crooked MBA guys from the fancy schools who helped steal the savings of ordinary Americans. Soon JOrge, George the younger and buds will be trying to stop the lawyers from doing this, too, I assume. Jorge and his namesake, George in the Whitehouse, don't want security or safety or pollution regs and they don't want lawsuits either. Now we know there associate, Tom Delay, has an excuse, he inahled too much bug spray since he wasn't going to let some burecrat from da "gubmint" tell him to wear a mask while spraying bug spray, but what is the excuse for George and Jorge? Why do they hate honest finacial transactions, safety and clean air and water? It is wierd.
jorge -- this ain't about the lawyers...we'll find a way to get paid...in fact, this still calls for our fees being paid! what it does is works a serious disadvantage to anyone up against a big company...as if there needed to be another one. disparity in bargaining position is something that has always been respected in the law...and accounted for. this throws any respect for that out, big time. i just watched a CLE course on this last week where even big time defense firm lawyers were talking about how bad this was...how the campaign centering around med mal was such a lie to the voting public. how the judiciary made tons and tons of suggestions to the legislature that went completely ignored in crafting the bill. you might remember...i'm a defense attorney. i work, primarily, for banks and corporations. i do some insurance defense work. and this is just ridiculous. juries are way too unpredictable to stick someone with a legitimate cause of action with the insurance companies' attorneys' fees.
by the way....if your parents are in a nursing home....and the nursing home employs someone with a criminal record...how has a history of beating old people...and he literally beats and cruelly tortures your parents...to the point of death... damages are capped at $250,000. yeah...great deterrant for big nursing home companies. absolutely idiotic.
Whoa there partner, in your endless quest to demagogue, you have missed the facts. Obviously damages are *not* capped at $250,000. Pain and suffering damages are capped at that number, you can also get that number out of the institution (hospital, nursing home, etc). Oh by the way, you can also get an *unlimited* amount of economic damage. So basically you are just wrong. Admit it. Please. Set the record straight. I have a hunch that you know you are wrong, but in your quest to embellish your stance on the issue, you choose to distort. Am I correct? Probably. Let's hear your excuse.
I read the rest of the points by glynch, Deckard, refman and MadMax, and frankly I'm just not persuaded by them. Nope. The one thing that they just totally miss in their rants is that the *system was broken*. Doctors were being put in the horrible position of choosing states and choosing between specialties because of enormous economic burden placed on them as a result of frivolous lawsuits. States and regions were being deprived of the proper care they needed because lawyers had hijacked the system. No doctor wants to operate in a state where lawsuits have forced insurance premiums to levels that don't allow for a doctor to make a living wage. Can you imagine living in Pennsylvania, a state that has been a popular battleground for frivolous lawsuits? You child has a rare gastrointestinal problem, but you can't find the required specialist to provide the proper care, because doctors are avoiding the area due to out of control med mal protection costs. This is unacceptable in every way. Essentially, the choice here boils down to who you want to make more comfortable. Doctors or trial lawyers. The voters recognized that doctors were the preferred choice. The voters approved this bill in Texas. Doctors are simply considered to be more essential than ambulance chasing lawyers. The system was broken and spiralling out of control. It won't happen overnight, but this bill will go a long way towards bringing things back into balance. Our health care system benefits greatly from the passage of this proposition.
Come on, T_J, do you have parents? What sort of "economic damage" are they going to be able to claim when they are living in a nursing home? Have you ever been inside one? Do you think they are all working out of their rooms with laptops or something?? Max just used them as an example, and it's a good one. What he described does happen. And it doesn't have to be someone who beats patients... much, much more common is criminally negligent care. Elderly parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts, who are left for days laying in their own waste, with bed sores and worse because they aren't getting proper care. It isn't always possible, in today's society when people get transferred and are afraid to turn them down because they could lose their jobs, to stay in the same town as your family member in a nursing home. They think they are being well treated, but all too often they are not. And the fact is that doctors haven't seen a hint of a rate decrease. Many have seen their rates rise instead. That dog won't hunt, as they say in East Texas.
No. You are not correct, as usual. It is laughable that you believe that you understand about the tort system better than two attorneys. I didn't even think that you could be so arrogant. Oh this is just rich. In keeping with the example of nursing home abuse, tell me what the economic damages are in an old lady in a nursing home dying. There aren't any. No lost wages, etc. Non-economic damages are all you have. So in the example about nursing home malfeasance causing death, damages for having Mom taken from you wrongly are, in fact, capped. You really think this was about helping doctors? Foolish. My father in law is a neurologist. Even after this law passed, his insurance company is raising premiums. The insurance companies are going to pocket the savings. This was nothing more than a money grab by the insurance lobby. Take off your blinders and see it. Or insurance companies. That is who is being made comfortable here. Doctors and lawyers both lose. More importantly, the people of Texas lose because they will not be able to bring their cliams. You are really hitting the hyperbole meter a little hard here. Do you think defense lawyers are ambulance chasers? The defense bar thinks this is bad too. They will still get paid regardless. In fact, they now have an additional way to shield their clients. It makes their lives easier. And they STILL think this sucks. You just lop all lawyers in the ambulance chaser category. Did some lawyer beat you up for your milk money in grade school? Or could it be that you have insurace stock in your 401k? Hmmmm....
This is a lawyer who either doesn't know the law or is willfully distorting it. Refman, you bit on this error too. Here are the right numbers, for those interested in learning. The measure, House Bill 4, includes a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages in jury awards. Proponents of the bill say that exorbitant punitive awards drive up malpractice rates. The cap applies to all doctors involved in a case to deter trial lawyers from skirting the reforms by suing every doctor who saw the patient. In addition, there is a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages against a single institution and a $500,000 cap on all health-care institutions combined. Additional liability limits for hospitals that provide charity care will help make sure health care remains accessible to the neediest Texans. Max and Refman, DEFEND YOURSELF
I am so happy you went there. You specifically called out punitive damages. These damages were capped years ago (using economic damages as a base to determine the cap level on a case by case basis) by Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code section 41.008. Seems like I and I are not the ones who need a legal lesson. Moreover, you cannot simply look at any one law. You must look at how it intersects with other laws and with the rational behavior of people to see what the effect will be. You cannot boil it down into one paragraph filled with hyperbole and expect to make your point. If you cannot understand that, then perhaps somebody else will have to make it simpler so Jorge can understand it.
