In our great nation, there is a Democratic party and a Republican party. As we know, the Democratic party is funded more by individuals, unions and attorneys. Attorneys are the main prosecutors of individual legal rights in the USA. They are funded through the free market as opposed to government bureaucracy The Republican party is funded by powerful corporations and insurance companies. Due to this funding, the interests of these powerhouses become the policies of the Republican-controlled federal government.
Some politicians have less compassion and concern for justice than others. George Bush is one of those politicians who will do whatever his political contributors wish. (Bush grew up with a silver spoon and never faced hardship so why should he have compassion for the disadvantaged?) This can be seen in his extreme policies on the environment, tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of children who need education and half a chance to compete.
These policies succeed because there is so much money behind them.President Bush came out with some recent proposals that fall into our area of expertise. He wishes to limit medical malpractice recoveries for non-economic damages (pain and suffering and disability) to $250,000.00.
Is it fair for a wealthy physician who renders a patient a quadriplegic to have a $250,000.00 liability limitation? What would pain and suffering and disability be worth if you were rendered wheelchair-bound for life, with no ability to move your arms or legs? Is $250,000 sufficient pay to compensate for lost limbs and chronic suffering? What if you were the one suffering? What would you say then?
When you pay a physician to provide you medical treatment, his job is to exercise reasonable care. The same applies to you in the work you do. If a physician takes your hard-earned money and destroys your life, is $250,000.00 reasonable? Do I have to answer the question?
Another facet of this relates to insurance company good faith. If $250,000.00 is the cap on damages, will insurance carriers pay $250,000.00? Ever? No, they won't. Why should they? Since that is their maximum payout on their case, they will instruct their attorney to get the plaintiff to accept less or to try the case. What is the worst that can happen? If a jury says that a quadriplegic is entitled to five million dollars, the verdict will be reduced to $250,000.00 under the Bush law. So, why ever pay $250,000.00 unless you force the plaintiff to face the hardship of an expensive jury trial. With this type of financial leverage, a plaintiff could never afford to seek the entire $250,000.00 (even if that were a reasonable sum).
As attorneys, our job is to protect the injured whose lives are ruined by physicians who don't appear to care enough about the patient to exercise reasonable care, or who have not kept up with their studies. Thanks to malpractice suits, many of these physicians have lost their surgical privileges because they have butchered and ruined so many people. As attorneys, we prosecute these cases. I myself prosecute these case for two reasons. One, for the satisfaction of seeing justice done for the disadvantaged and injured and two, it's how I make a living. I can tell you this -- without the second reason, it would be financially impossible to practice based on the first reason. We can want to do justice, but if it will bankrupt the attorney, then, no justice can be forthcoming.
Let's talk about the internal workings of a law firm, a view you rarely hear. With a $250,000.00 cap, we would be forced to stop filing malpractice cases and cease helping the injured. First, we charge on a contingency fee basis (no fee unless we win). We will spend $50,000 to $100,000.00 in costs prosecuting a malpractice case, in part because they are so vigorously defended by insurance carriers. Insurance carriers will routinely spend more defending a case then they could have settled it for. It is the company policy (or ego) of these powerful corporations.
We charge no fee unless we win. If we lose a major case, it can be a financial catastrophe. Our law firm takes the financial risk of litigation. This is what puts the law firm and the injured person in the same boat, though the injured person is certainly in a much worse position and we recognize that.
What business would invest the type of cost we have to spend in order to get a 1/3 fee on $250,000.00? So, we risk $50,000-$100,000.00 to make a maximum of $70,000.00. In addition, the injured person after fees and costs gets little to nothing. Even if we prevail in the case, after paying all of our employees, experts, staff, rent, etc., we would be applying to the bankruptcy court. President Bush knows this. His attorneys certainly advise him of this. So, whose interests does Bush have in mind?
President Bush ignores these problems as he ignores the disadvantaged in the United States. Does Bush suggest the insurance lawyers or insurance industry reform so as to create more justice for the victims of medical malpractice. Does he suggest a fairer system? No! He only attacks the injured person and his or her attorney. We have to be stupid to not know why. It's because Bush will not attack the interests that fund his campaign. Why would he?
Hence, Bush's proposal -- if successful -- will end malpractice litigation. You won't hear about the occasional large verdict anymore. Wouldn't that be nice? The Repubican voter can rest easier knowing that the Republican party has taken away the only system of justice the injured has and immunized physicians' insurance carriers.
So, when you are butchered by a physician and your life is destroyed and your wife will leave you or you can't care for your kids and the physician who butchered you is making millions and continues to practice with impunity, you will have no remedy and the physician will become more and more powerful while you disappear from society.
President Bush "sounds good" doesn't he? But he's telling only one side of the story -- completely ignoring the pain, suffering and, yes, very substantial costs inflicted on those harmed by malpractice. The injured person will pay for the rest of his life. Does that sound fair and just to you?
| What's your opinion? Visit the Consumer Forum to speak your mind. |
---
Clifford W. Horwitz is the Managing Partner of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, a plaintiff's law firm in Chicago.
