CBO: Tort Reform=Savings of $54 Billion

[guido911]

Yep, the same CBO that just announced that Obamacare would ultimately save $81B in the long run also believes that tort reform would also result in a significant reduction of the deficit.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/09/AR2009100904271.html

"Well, we just can't have that." -- Trial Lawyers for America

[we vs us]

So is "tort reform" a fancy way of saying "damage caps?" 

"The agency's conclusion: A package of reforms that included a $250,000 cap on damages for pain and suffering and a $500,000 cap on punitive damages "would reduce total national health care spending by about 0.5 percent."

I guess it's no surprise that if you take away the risk of substanial punishment for bad deeds then costs for defending against that punishment would go down too.  Without punishment, you can bet that the incidence of bad deeds would skyrocket. 

In other words, "tort reform" sounds a bit like we're selling out the little guy to an industry that's the size of a 6th of our GNP. I also like the fact that, in order to sell what amounts to yet another steaming pile of corporate welfare, you have to demonize trial lawyers to do it.

[brianh]

Since when is $250,000 not a substantial punishment? I know doctors make a lot of money, but that is like 3 years worth of work or more. And $500,000 is absolutely insane, we need some serious reform here if people are being awarded more than that. Also the patient should get a refund for the cost of the procedure, and if the procedure costs more than those limits, then that is also crazy. Honestly I would like to see these limits at like $15,000 above the cost of the procedure.  We need to be reasonable citizens here. We have a place for people who intentionally cause problems, jail; the rest is just an honest accident.  I am an independent with a liberal slant and while I often agree with democrats, I am certainly against the popular consensus on this issue.

Most of us have jobs where we occasionally cause an accident. Even with many years of experience and all the training we can get, we still cause one.  So because of the nature of being a doctor, your essentially saying that they have to perfect in every way possible throughout their entire career. It's not humanely possible, and it is not a human thing to do to punish them when life's random number generator sells them down the river.

[we vs us]

Since when is $250,000 not a substantial punishment? I know doctors make a lot of money, but that is like 3 years worth of work or more. And $500,000 is absolutely insane, we need some serious reform here if people are being awarded more than that. Also the patient should get a refund for the cost of the procedure, and if the procedure costs more than those limits, then that is also crazy. Honestly I would like to see these limits at like $15,000 above the cost of the procedure.  We need to be reasonable citizens here. We have a place for people who intentionally cause problems, jail; the rest is just an honest accident.  I am an independent with a liberal slant and while I often agree with democrats, I am certainly against the popular consensus on this issue.

Most of us have jobs where we occasionally cause an accident. Even with many years of experience and all the training we can get, we still cause one.  So because of the nature of being a doctor, your essentially saying that they have to perfect in every way possible throughout their entire career. It's not humanely possible, and it is not a human thing to do to punish them when life's random number generator sells them down the river.

$250k is a massive hit to an individual practitioner, I agree.  $250k is less than nothing to a national health conglomerate.  I don't want to punish individual practitioners beyond what's fair but know that massive damages are one of the few things that keep larger corporate entities in line.  If "tort reform" can protect the former while retaining damages in scale for the latter, I'm all for it. 

Unfortunately, I think it's been proven time and again that on the corporate level there simply is no such thing as the hippocratic oath.  There is really only profit motive.  Since there isn't, I think it's right and just to use the law -- including punitive damages in civil courts -- to encourage ethical behavior.

[Red Arrow]

$250k is a massive hit to an individual practitioner, I agree.  $250k is less than nothing to a national health conglomerate.  I don't want to punish individual practitioners beyond what's fair but know that massive damages are one of the few things that keep larger corporate entities in line.  If "tort reform" can protect the former while retaining damages in scale for the latter, I'm all for it. 

Unfortunately, I think it's been proven time and again that on the corporate level there simply is no such thing as the hippocratic oath.  There is really only profit motive.  Since there isn't, I think it's right and just to use the law -- including punitive damages in civil courts -- to encourage ethical behavior.

I would have less problem with large punitive (as in punish the wrong do-er) damage awards if all of the punitive award went to the charity of the winners choice.

[FOTD]

The only thing the Republicans add to this debate is their stand on limiting liability.

Screw the trial lieyers....

[guido911]

The only thing the Republicans add to this debate is their stand on limiting liability.

Screw the trial lieyers....

The article is not about limiting liability, its about capping damages.

[cannon_fodder]

"Tort reform" really isn't reforming any torts, it's merely capping victims damages and giving the medical profession increased immunity.  You aren't changing the tort in any way, shape or form. The doctor still owes a duty, and if he breaches that duty he is still negligent.  The only difference is that the negligent party is much less likely to have to pay as we grant them more immunity.

But I wholeheartedly agree, if you reduce citizens access to the courts and take damage assessment away from citizens, you will save money.  Surely a Congressman in Washington, D.C. or a House member in OKC knows what someone's damages are and what appropriate compensation would be than a group of stupid citizens who actually heard the case.  If we totally nationalize health care and forbid any suits we save a lot more money.

How much money would I have to pay you to cripple you for the rest of your life?  $500,000 sound like just compensation for never running, hiking, playing golf, walking around the fair, fishing . . . or any of the other 1,000 activities you like to do (how much to never have sex again)?  If someone offered me $2mil to forgo my normal active lifestyle I'd tell them to take a hike.   Yet when that same transaction is forced on someone because of a doctors negligence, too damn bad.

Of course, the real game is to cap damages so hospitals and doctors don't have to worry about large verdicts anymore.  Instead of admitting mistakes and/or settling cases for a fair value, they can tell a person to screw off knowing full-well that they are not exposed for any more than $500K no matter how horribly they treat the person or in what bad-faith they negotiate.   What incentive to settle the case is there when your damages are significantly capped?  Then, at a certain point, there isn't an incentive to even file a suit or seek compensation for negligent medical care (keeping in mind the US has more errors per procedure than any other developed nation).

And hey Guido, November 1st Medical Immunity goes into effect in Oklahoma . . . when should I expect to hear about my rate reduction from my insurance company?  Surely those savings will be passed on to the Oklahoma citizens who gave up their rights.  Let me know.

/I do not practice med mal and no one I know has benefiting from a large med mal settlement/verdict

[Red Arrow]

We've heard frequently about limiting the little guy's access to the justice system.  Lawyers want to be sure of a reasonable profit to make up for the cases they don't win.

How about the doctors?  No one plans to be negligent but a jury is more likely to side with an injured party than a doctor in a case which is not perfectly clear to the most casual observer.  At what point will a doctor say to a patient that performing a procedure is too risky for the doctor's career and not do it at any price?

[guido911]

"Tort reform" really isn't reforming any torts, it's merely capping victims damages and giving the medical profession increased immunity.  You aren't changing the tort in any way, shape or form. The doctor still owes a duty, and if he breaches that duty he is still negligent.  The only difference is that the negligent party is much less likely to have to pay as we grant them more immunity.

But I wholeheartedly agree, if you reduce citizens access to the courts and take damage assessment away from citizens, you will save money.  Surely a Congressman in Washington, D.C. or a House member in OKC knows what someone's damages are and what appropriate compensation would be than a group of stupid citizens who actually heard the case.  If we totally nationalize health care and forbid any suits we save a lot more money.

How much money would I have to pay you to cripple you for the rest of your life?  $500,000 sound like just compensation for never running, hiking, playing golf, walking around the fair, fishing . . . or any of the other 1,000 activities you like to do (how much to never have sex again)?  If someone offered me $2mil to forgo my normal active lifestyle I'd tell them to take a hike.   Yet when that same transaction is forced on someone because of a doctors negligence, too damn bad.

Of course, the real game is to cap damages so hospitals and doctors don't have to worry about large verdicts anymore.  Instead of admitting mistakes and/or settling cases for a fair value, they can tell a person to screw off knowing full-well that they are not exposed for any more than $500K no matter how horribly they treat the person or in what bad-faith they negotiate.   What incentive to settle the case is there when your damages are significantly capped?  Then, at a certain point, there isn't an incentive to even file a suit or seek compensation for negligent medical care (keeping in mind the US has more errors per procedure than any other developed nation).

And hey Guido, November 1st Medical Immunity goes into effect in Oklahoma . . . when should I expect to hear about my rate reduction from my insurance company?  Surely those savings will be passed on to the Oklahoma citizens who gave up their rights.  Let me know.

/I do not practice med mal and no one I know has benefiting from a large med mal settlement/verdict

Where are you getting this idea that the medical profession is getting "immunity" from anything. Black's Law Dictionary (8th ed.) defines "immunity", in the context of tort law, as "a doctrine providing a complete defense to a tort action; unlike a privilege, immunity does not negate the tort, and it must be raised affirmatively or it will be waived."  Could you direct me to the part of Oklahoma's tort reform package that provides a doctor a complete defense to a medical malpractice case? Last I checked, doctors can still get sued after November 1.

Your attempt to define "tort reform" in such limited terms (capping damages) so misunderstands what actually happens after Nov. 1 it smacks of insincerity. Yes, caps on non-economic damages will occur (however your passioned plea argument that doctors will have no incentive to settle is improperly premised--they still face loss income, medical care and other economic damages particulars), but other significant changes will occur that will fundamentally alter how tort cases will proceed. Joint and several liability will change (no more 1% liability resulting in a defendant paying more than his pro rata share of liability crap), require expert opinion/certificate of merit in certain liability cases, strengthening the definition of frivolous lawsuits, changing the standard of review for summary judgments to be more in line with the triplets, and other matters. So quit with your erroneous characterization of tort reform as just a boon to doctors.

As for your direct question as to your expectation of insurance premium reduction, what type of insurance are you referring to? Home/auto or professional liability? If its the latter, in Texas after their tort reform was enacted, med mal insurance rates decreased dramatically. I have sourced that fact previously in this forum.

[cannon_fodder]

Great!  When Doctors med mal rates went down in Texas I will assume that patients saw a corresponding decrease in costs and their health insurance costs went down.  I look forward to my portion of the savings. (did you really think I thought my home owners insurance would go down because we made medical malpractice more difficult?)

Guido, I'm not being insincere at all.  I have no reason to be.  As I stated I have no personal stake in this game.  I simply find it troubling when we limit the public's rights in order to appease a small minority of influential people.

If a woman made $30,000 a year as a secretary and accidental had a limb removed (or whatever obvious malpractice accident) her recovery would be significantly limited.  She would miss a few months or so of work, but her long-term earnings would not be effected.   She'd get $10,000 in lost income, a free prosthetic leg, and hope to get the cap of $500,000 in pain and suffering.  To me, that doesn't sound fair at all.  But since it was an accident cause by a doctor . . . $500,000 will make me whole no matter what.  

If a doctor negligently crashed their car into the same woman causing the same injuries, the damages would be several times what they would be if the exact same injury were caused on an operating table. Certainly the woman's damages are actually the same.  I doubt the woman cares if the leg was lost to a man with a scalpel and not a man driving a car.  It's a farce.  (and before you ridicule my anecdote, the law makes no exceptions.  It's a blanket policy taking decision making away from juries)

Doctors now share largely the same degree of immunity from suit as the government does.  Citizens are restricted in the manner in which we can pursue an action against them and if successful, are prohibited from the opportunity of being made whole.    No, they are not "immune" from tort law . . . but the extent of their protection from their own negligent actions raises far above nearly any other situation.  Why is it that if a bus driver does something negligent that results in harm to me we can trust a jury to award damages to make me whole . . . but when a doctor negligently causes harm to me I am prohibited from recovering my entire damages?

Why does the doctor get damage caps, tougher standards, and other hurdles when drivers, attorneys, engineers, or any number of other people who practice a profession don't?  What makes the negligence of doctors special?  We are selecting a particular group of people and saying "you shouldn't be forced to pay for your mistakes to the extent other people are."   I still have some faith in our judicial system and in the juries of Oklahoma, at least to the extent they can evaluate a situation better after hearing the facts than a legislator in OKC can blind.

So quit with your erroneous characterization of tort reform as just a boon to doctors.

Lets see:

1) Requiring $25,000+ upfront cost for an expert opinion in order to gain access to the courts in a malpractice case

2) Making it easier to dismiss med mal cases

3) Making it harder for med mal cases to be granted summary judgment

Wow, you're right.  Tons in there to protect the rights of citizens.  Are you serious arguing that this new "tort reform" isn't a huge boon for doctors and med mal insurance companies?  The law essentially grants everything the insurance companies and doctors have been trying to get in Oklahoma for more than a decade.  I highly doubt anyone else will see any kind of advantage from this law (for instance, medical costs and medical insurance rates will NOT go down).

I guess my basic question is why do doctors get special treatment for their negligent actions?  My answer to that question is "they have a strong lobby", another is "Oklahomans are too stupid to award damages, and the other answer is "it's for the common good, comrade".  I find those unacceptable.   

[Red Arrow]

You may be awarded a large settlement from a "bus driver" but collecting may be another story.

[guido911]

CF:

Tort reform is not just about doctors so stop misleading people in this forum. I noticed you conveniently ignored the numerous other examples of tort reform that was recently passed. That is where you were insincere (a toned down word from what I really believe you are being--purposeful mischaracterization). Contrary to your point, which you have every reason to be and in which you do have a "stake". These reforms are going to hit you and other plaintiff lawyers squarely in your pocketbook. Incidentally, I too work on plaintiff cases, even though I primarily work on the defense side of things.

As you plainly do not want to discuss the other reforms I discussed (joint/several liability, summary judgment standard) which vitiates your original point that tort reform is only about giving "immunity" to doctors, let's look at the points you raised. First, your reference that capping non-economic damages as "immunity", which you admittedly contradict in the same paragraph, really undercuts us having an intelligent argument since you are intentionally misusing that term of art which has independent legal significance. There is no immunity being given to any doctor.    

Second, I do not understand your concern about requiring a plaintiff to retain an expert before filing. To establish a professional negligence action in this state, a plaintiff must come forward with an expert to establish the legal duty owed, the breach thereof, and that said breach was the direct cause of an injury. See, e.g., Benson v. Tkach, 2001 OK CIV APP 100 ¶10, 30 P.3d 402, 404 ("Normally, when a patient sues a physician for failure to properly diagnose or treat the patient, the issue of fact is one of science and must be established and determined upon the testimony of skilled, professional witnesses."); citing, Boxberger v. Martin, 1976 OK 78, 552 P.2d 370. What's wrong with having just a minimal amount of evidence of the existence of professional negligence before that professional (not just doctors, but also lawyers, accountants, architects) is forced to hire an expensive lawyer and retain their own expert, which would far exceed your grossly inflated $25,000 cost (In Zeier v. Zimmer, 2006 OK 98, ¶26,162 P.3d 861, the case where the expert affidavit requirement in med mal cases was found unconstitutional, the Oklahoma Supreme Court noted that the cost of an expert report ranged from $500-$5,000)? Oh I know, because doing so would stop plaintiff lawyers from shooting first and asking questions later. Incidentally, this requirement can be waived if there is indigence.

Third, as for a decrease in insurance rates, and yes I meant your home owners insurance because such may become implicated if a tortious injury occurs in your house, I do not know when your rates will decrease. There will certainly be, however, a decrease in the unnecessary defensive medical tests/procedures that you will no longer need to endure, or pay for through insurance or out of your own pocket, that might benefit YOU. Is that not good enough for you? I ask that because apparently you believe you are the intended beneficiary of tort reform and not those victimized by frivolous crap lawsuits filed by predatory, profiteering plaintiffs.

It might interest you that I represented numerous lawyers that were sued by dissatisfied former clients who would have benefited greatly from these evil reforms. I think you will change your tune if, or when, you get sued.

Fourth, your argument that somehow doctors are being treated as a special class of people is specious to say the least. Take a look at 60 O.S. Sec. 837(B)-(D), a provision within Oklahoma's Residential Property Disclosure Act, which states:

B. The sole and exclusive civil remedy at common law or otherwise for a failure under subsection A of this section [failure to disclose a known defect in a home] by the seller or the real estate licensee shall be an action for actual damages, including the cost of repairing the defect, suffered by the purchaser as a result of a defect existing in the property as of the date of acceptance by the seller of an offer to purchase and shall not include the remedy of exemplary damages.

C. Any action brought under this act shall be commenced within two (2) years after the date of transfer of real property subject to this act.

D. In any civil action brought under this act, the prevailing party shall be allowed court costs and a reasonable attorney fee to be set by the court and to be collected as costs.


See the limitations of damages; see the prohibition on punitive damages; see the special statute of limitations; see the waiver of the American Rule on attorney fees? Don't hear you complaining how realtors and home sellers are treated special. There was also this little gem in Oklahoma's Nursing Home Care Act which, prior to amendment a few years ago, provided:

F. Any person convicted of violating any provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than One Hundred Dollars ($100.00), nor more than Three Hundred Dollars ($300.00), or imprisonment in the county jail for not more than thirty (30) days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.
G. In addition to the penalties provided in this section, an action may be brought against an individual by any resident who is injured by any violation of this section, or who shall suffer injury from any person whose threats would cause a violation of this section if carried through, may maintain an action to prevent, restrain or enjoin a violation or threatened violation. If a violation or threatened violation of this section shall be established in any action, the court shall enjoin and restrain or otherwise prohibit the violation or threatened violation and assess in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant the cost of the suit, and the reasonable attorney fees incurred by the plaintiff.

These subsections stated in 63 O.S. Sec. 1-1918, which followed the most ambiguous and non-specific list of resident rights that included a nursing home resident's right to "retain and use personal clothing and possessions" and right to receive "a statement of the facility's regulations" made what was at most a violation of goals and aspirations a misdemeanor punishable by fine and would subject the offending facility to equitable and legal relief, in addition to rewarding only the prevailing plaintiff their attorney fees. Is a prevailing defendant entitled in those cases to recover their fees? Nope.  Any complaints by the likes of you over this? Nope. This statute did spur mountains of nursing home negligence cases in the early part of this decade, which devastated .  
There are similar limitations on persons' rights whose injures occurred on the job and persons working for the state as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment who cause an injury. The latter includes immunity, not limitations on damages, for independent physicians that are contracted to work in correctional facilities, physicians teaching in medical schools, and certain classes of those persons working in the medical and mental health professions.  

Finally, you ask why doctors are special? Take a look at the professional negligence insurance premiums you pay, and think about multiplying that by a factor of 10. Take a look at what happens to your client if you make a minor mistake versus what happens when a doctor that makes a minor mistake (especially ER docs who are working in a frenetic environment that are without the benefit of a complete medical history of a patient).  

The more I read these "this ain't fair", populist attacks re: tort reform, the more inclined I am to jump on board with those pushing real reform such as changing the burden of proof from the preponderance standard to "clear and convincing" in all tort cases or even adopting the English rule on attorney fees. That would result in two certainties: 1) really setting folks like you off, which will lead to, 2) amusing me greatly. For now, victims of medical negligence and their lawyers will have to settle for not becoming millionaires in Oklahoma.  

[cannon_fodder]

You may be awarded a large settlement from a "bus driver" but collecting may be another story.

1. So the difference is that we shouldn't allow large judgments against people we can collect them against?

2. A bus driver, as a commercial driver, would likely have a large insurance policy via their employer.
- - -

Guido (sorry for the choppy reply, time crunch):

You can ignore the rest and answer more core concern:  how can a bureaucrat in Oklahoma City know what a persons damages are better than a jury in Tulsa?  The answer is, of course,  they can not.  So the question becomes:  why is it worth giving up our rights in exchange for lower medical premiums for MDs?

BY your own admission, this law makes it more difficult to successful peruse a med mal case.   So when a Plaintiff gets a verdict, we can be pretty certain that the MD in question was negligent.  So why prevent the jury from doing what they feel is appropriate to make the person whole?

I'm not being trite.  I don't believe it will benefit anyone other than those that pay medical premiums directly and their insurance carriers, but it limits the rights of everyone. That's how I view this issue.  



In response to your post:

responding to: 0) How is this going to hit my pocketbook?  I've never worked on a malpractice case, my firm doesn't take malpractice cases, I don't pay med mal premiums and my wife doesn't pay med mal premiums.  I've never sued a doctor personally or professionally.  No one in my family has ever sued a doctor (I have 6 aunts/uncles that are MDs [dentist, OB/GYN, opthamologist/eye surgeon, podiatrist, orthopedic surgeon, and another who has worked as an admin as long as I can remember).    

I highly doubt this reform will have a significant impact on my practice.  But you are right to assert that whatever effect it does have will be solely to the detriment of plaintiff's attorneys and their clients.  Which is my point.  But that still doesn't bother me.  If the Plaintiffs bar is destroyed I'd be happy to do business litigation, defense work, whatever . . . it doesn't matter to me as I don't have a stake in the firm and am young enough to shift gears.

1) Tort reform is providing partial immunity to doctors.  If the actual damages to make a person whole are $2,000,000 in non-economic damages, they have immunity from $1,500,000 of it.    Additionally, the rules are set up to help prevent people from bringing a suit and being successful.  Thus, it is at very least partial immunity as they are not responsible to the same degree as other professions (it doesn't cap damages for CL drivers, auditors, legal malpractice [cases I do work on], heavy machine operators, or etc.).

2) If you can find me an expert for a med mal case for $5,000 let me know.  I'm sure I could market his services to EVERYONE.  How much does Framjee charge to touch a medical record, let alone conduct an actual exam and testify at trial?  Most med mal cases cost the Plaintiffs firm in excess of $50,000 easy.  Can you get an affidavit for $5K, probably.  But given the easier standards to dismiss I doubt anyone wants a chump opinion to get torn up in court.  We'll have to see how it hashes out, it does all depend on how the rule is applied (Plaintiffs bar is talking like you essentially need full medical expert in advance).

To be clear, I am not against punishing and/or throwing out frivolous lawsuits.  Likewise, I am not against measures that punish defendants for defending a position which is crap and should be settled.   If the rule is applied as you suggest and is a basic litmus test to stop idiots from suing over nothing, then I have no problem.  But if serves as a $5,000+ bar to filing - I have a problem with it.

3) Your argument in this paragraph can be summarized as follows:  "this law protects doctors from Oklahomans."  It removes the deciding power from Oklahoma juries in order to protect MDs, hospitals, and insurance companies.  The damage cap has NOTHING to do with preventing "frivolous crap lawsuits".  I am not arguing against the rules that will be utilized to chuck out the suit for $5,000,000 for failing to change a colostomy bag or whatever worthless crap I'm sure you see everyday.  

The damage cap will only come into play when a jury determines that negligence has occurred and a victim is deserving of compensation.  Damn those profiteering attorneys for getting people compensation from negligent parties.  Stupid Oklahomans all wanting the right to have a case determined by their peers.

That's my problem.  This law operates to the detriment of all Oklahomans to benefit a few and in an attempt to overtly punish a tiny fraction of people ("predatory, profiteering plaintiffs").   I am specifically hung up on the damages cap, as you may have noticed.

4)

A) Yes. Real property operates under different rules than Tort law.  There are no punitive damages in property law and none in contract law.  Property law also comes with attorneys fees.

These are generally held principles of law are are wildly different than medical negligence.  If someone sells you a defective house, they have to pay to make it right.  If a doctor cuts off the wrong leg, they CAN'T MAKE IT RIGHT.  There is a wild difference between property law and tort.

B) I do not know enough about this law to speak.  Thus, I you are unlikely to get a comment "from the likes of me" on it one way or another.  I readily admit to not knowing all the laws in the State of Oklahoma.  I will admit Oklahoma has other stupid laws.  Thank you for the insight and taking the time to post them for me.

5)  Doctors pay a high premium because their errors have greater costs.   That's why they go to school for years and years and get paid hundreds of thousands of dollars.  It is a highly valued and highly skilled position that is highly compensated.

Yes, their rates are high.  But if we want to compare rates, I'd be happy to trade.  I'll pay their insurance rates in exchange for their salary and they can take my salary and my insurance rates - at the end of the day I can tell you who would be better off.  So what relevance is that?  Med insurance rates are a simple risk-reward proposition like any other insurance.  Should we give insurance breaks to people who drive Ferrari's because if you mess up it costs more?

Additionally, a minor mistake - regardless of the negative consequences, doesn't necessarily mean medical negligence.  If an unconscious patient is given (insert drug here) in the ER and was allergic to it but the MD had no way of knowing that . . . then it wasn't negligent.    Again, I'm not arguing in favor of stupid lawsuits against MDs.  I'm arguing that when MDs are negligent they should be treated like everyone else.  If an MD altruistically accepts a position for $40,000 a year working for a non-profit - then I'll treat them special.  Otherwise, they are operating as a for-profit venture just like everyone else.
- - -

The more I read these "this ain't fair", populist attacks re: tort reform, the more inclined I am to jump on board with those pushing real reform such as changing the burden of proof from the preponderance standard to "clear and convincing" in all tort cases or even adopting the English rule on attorney fees. That would result in two certainties: 1) really setting folks like you off, which will lead to, 2) amusing me greatly. For now, victims of medical negligence and their lawyers will have to settle for not becoming millionaires in Oklahoma.

I'm not sure why you decided this was some horrible personal attack. But it seems a bit troubling to revel so much in the concerns of others. That fact that you disregard all other concerns to cater to the financial interests of a few doesn't do anything to convince me these reforms will help with frivolous lawsuits or other admitted problems.

I wouldn't be too opposed to the English rule as I hate perusing crap cases and it would encourage more settlements.  Raising the standard would stink to me of punishing victims for no apparent reason (Plaintiffs are greedy evil people [unless its someone I know], trial lawyers are horrible [unless I need one], juries are stupid [unless I'm on it], etc.).  Those issues aside, I trust a jury in Tulsa more than a bureaucrat in Oklahoma City to determine what a persons damages are. Plain and simple.   I see no reason to take that power away from them.

I'm sorry you are taking this so personally.  Again, the way my mind sees this equation is as follows:

Oklahomans give up the right to full compensation for medical negligence.
MDs get lower medical negligent premiums
Insurance companies increase profits.

How does that help most people?  Screw the details.  Convince me of the big picture because apparently I don't get it.
- - - - - - - - -

/there goes lunch  

If any of this sounds smartass, ignore it.  Really really. Convince me this is in the best interest of Oklahoma.  We clearly have divergent views on the issue and I don't understand your viewpoint.

[guido911]

I am not trying to convince you of anything in this thread. I am trying to explain to you that your understanding of "tort reform" is flat wrong. Remember, this began with your post that stated:

"Tort reform" really isn't reforming any torts, it's merely capping victims damages and giving the medical profession increased immunity.

There were so many things wrong with that statement which is what prompted me to try to set the record straight. I have failed. You still are throwing the word "immunity" around incorrectly and you refuse to acknowledge that there is more to Oklahoma's tort reform statute than just protecting doctors.

I have read your latest post, and cannot see how I can respond without repeating myself. Still, some points merit response. 

1.  Taking things personally:  Nope. No reason to because these reforms will occur. The fact that you quite plainly are upset/resentful that the entire medical profession is getting away with something

2.  Your practice.  I believe that getting rid of the outrageous joint and several liability law (which basically allowed a so-called fault free plaintiff to collect from a defendant more than their pro rata share of liability) and changing the standard of review for summary judgment in ALL tort cases will certainly decrease settlement leverage and as to the latter the likelihood of your case not going to trial will increase. Think about this, and I am assuming you have spent time in federal court, how much harder is it to get past summary judgment in that forum?  Indeed, how many times have you had your cases removed to federal court? One reason for doing so is the standard of review for summary judgment is very different than Oklahoma's more liberal standard and the court is more likely to grant summary judgment.

3.  Expert fees.  The number quoted in the Zeier case is the Supremes figure. Argue with them.

There is more, but I gotta go. Vacation time.