Progressive Case for Tort Reform

[tbredbeck]

This is the very brief version of what I experienced.

Our son was born with a defect that needed fixing. However, in the process of diagnosing the problem there were multiple mistakes made including some negligence. As a result, my son is now 5 and still is awaiting reconstructive surgery of his urinary tract.

We pursued the idea of a case with a couple of different attorneys. The conclusion was that yes, we had a case, but no, they couldn't take it. There wasn't enough "upside" because the damage isn't extreme enough. In other words, the cost of pursuing the claim would far outstrip any potential reward.

So I've come to think tort reform shouldn't be just a GOP issue, and certainly NOT for the reasons they claim. People with claims need a way to pursue them without having to hire a team of attorneys.

I'm interested in any comments people have on this. Thanks.

[sharesunited]

1. Couldn't agree more.

Arbitration employing an independent medical evaluation and standardized compensation can do justice and do it more expeditiously.

Your son's is a classic case of the jackpot just not being large enough to make litigation worthwhile to pursue.

Result: No justice, no compensation, and medical incompetence swept under the rug.

Malpractice aside, how is the health insurance responding? Is your son covered, and is the injury covered for treatment?

[tbredbeck]

4. Insurance....

Ah, insurance. Another short version of events:

He wasn't covered when he was born. I had left a job to return to grad school, and the COBRA information got lost in the mail. Seriously. My wife was pregnant, so private health insurers mysteriously stopped returning our calls.

I gave up grad school pretty quickly after that and went back to work. His treatments have been covered, except for one which has landed us in huge debt. I'll save that for another post.

My main point for this post is as you said about the jackpot not being large enough. If they had maimed or killed him, no doubt we could have sued. But just botching it doesn't count.

[snot]

2. You've hit a nail on the head.

There are two ways of holding people responsible. One is through government regulation and enforcement and the other is by allowing individuals to sue. But in either case, the devil is in the details.

If we're relying on the gummint, there must be well-drafted regulation, AND good people running the enforcement agency, AND the agency must be adequately funded.

If we're relying on individual suits, the law governing their claims must be well-drafted, AND it can't be so expensive to sue that it's not worthwhile.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. The challenge is that doctors, nurses, hospitals, etc. don't take responsibility

outside a court of law ordinarily. This is partly because their insurance carriers won't allow liability and pay-offs. It has to be attained via a "win" or a settlement after long months of gathering evidence via documents and depositions, not to mention the procurement of experts. This is pricey.

One wonders whether extrajudicial arbitrations could be facilitated without insurance, but I don't see how.

[bemildred]

5. Well, I do think that making legal process cheaply available to everyone would be a good thing.

Having to buy access to the law is every bit as pernicious and having to buy access in politics.