PDA

View Full Version : An End to Frivolous Lawsuits?


Prozerran
08-26-2007, 11:46 PM
Hopefully, I'm not boring you or creating a too much of a fuss with the topics I've been posting recently. I have another topic of interest that I thought might deserve some discussion. I don't have links or quotes, no sources to review this time. Simply put, I want to know your position on the current basis for putting an end to law suits considered "frivolous" or a waste of time and money.

This is mostly prevalent in the medical industry, more specifically with medical malpractice and insurance related civil litigation. Essentially, the position against them is that lawyers are greedy, settlement-mongering animals looking for ways to manipulate the law to make money.

But if there exists a reason for citizens to file a grievance against the medical industry or insurance companies, should it not be addressed? Is it that attorneys are looking for trouble, or is it that so many law suits would not need to be filed if people in these industries were following the rules? I stand by the law. If such a case can be made against these industries, then it SHOULD be made. I see the push to put an end to these lawsuits as a way to give these companies a way out of meeting their responsibilities to citizens. When should we stop holding these groups accountable?

The classic argument is a slippery slope. If we keep suing insurance companies and doctors, it will be too expensive for them to continue providing services. In one case, an insurance company was sued for wrongful death because they did not provide the insured the treatment that could save his life. Why? Because the treatment was at a hospital that was not covered in the policy. Moreover, even if the hospital was covered in the policy, the procedure was not covered. In the end, the insurance company in question was offering coverage to the poor, taking their money, then not covering their medical expenses when the procedure passed a certain amount of cost. The cost of litigation was less than that of the cost of covering the client. It was obviously a matter to be heard in a court of law.

And the pitiful insurance companies and medical industry as a whole is crying foul because more and more people are holding them accountable. Let me get my little fiddle... poor Corporate America... I don't feel the least bit sorry for any of them.

Kazeofwinds
08-27-2007, 12:27 AM
I'd rather see the other brand of frivolous lawsuits eliminated as opposed to the medical related ones. Get rid of the "I hurt myself because I'm stupid and there was no warning label." You know, the ones that mandate warnings like "Hot coffee is hot", "This woodchipper can shred you", "trying to shake heavy assed vending machines can result in them falling on you", "don't put your hand under the running lawnmower" and "Keep electronics out of the fucking bathtub."


Seriously, let Darwin have all the people that are damned idiots, It'll better humanity in the long run.

As far as the medical related ones go, they shouldn't be eliminated, but there should probably be some standard for allowing judges to deem a case to be opportunistic money grabbing and toss it out, as opposed to a legitimate problem.

LinkTheGameFreak
08-27-2007, 12:37 AM
Pro, my train of thinking is that if you are not making people uncomfortable with what you are talking about, then you are not doing your job as a person to make them think long and hard about what they value and why, and you sir are doing an excellent thought, providing topics for fodder :)

That having been said, I believe that in the example you cited about the wrongful death suit, the person has no basis of a claim to sue on. They knew that their insurance sucked, the hospital might have helped but they were at the wrong one, and etc

The idea of health care in this country is bad enough as it is though, and to throw law suits into it is a bit much to think about for me right now, given that the current state of it is rather bad. Once a person's procedure goes past a certain point on their insurance, is it really the position of the hospital to refuse treatment though? I'm not really sure because although it's a human life, it's also business and in most cases not a charity. So if we treat everyone that comes in, and more than a small majority cannot pay, then do we turn them away or simply refuse to treat them because of the high costs that will most likely ensue for future patients.

It's honestly a difficult situation but if I had to make a decision now, given this info I'd say that in some cases, hospitals have no choice other than to turn away people who cannot pay and a lawsuit for wrongful death is only another blow to our already weak financial infrastructure of medical care. As you said above, more lawsuits = higher future costs of medical care.

Then, let's consider death itself. Is it really justified to sue a hospital who refused to see a patient who couldn't pay, and as a result that person dies? Although I personally think this it is not justified to do so, it's definitely a commentary on the people that they will sue for millions of dollars. And why? The average funeral costs about 5-10 thousand dollars today, yet you could simply cremate them for a fraction of the cost. And if lack of money is such a factor to your decision to sue, then you should be looking for economically wise ways to bury your dead, rather than spending all that cash on a pretty box and expensive suit that gets put in the dirt.

Errr, so sorry for getting off tangent, but yeah, uhm... uh huh.

Icarus
08-27-2007, 6:17 PM
Then, let's consider death itself. Is it really justified to sue a hospital who refused to see a patient who couldn't pay, and as a result that person dies?

They wouldn't do that, because of the lawsuits that would ensue.

I only know of malpractice law, and not civil law as a whole, so that's all I can respond to.

My main problem is, when a malpractice suit is won for the plaintiff, the person who pays the victims is the hospital, not the doctor. I do not see any reason that the hospital should do that. The doctor made the mistake, not the hospital. When the hospital pays, the funding that goes to the hospitals equipment and salaries and other expenses like that is injured. The one who screwed up was the physician, not a corporate entity.

I see the push to put an end to these lawsuits as a way to give these companies a way out of meeting their responsibilities to citizens.

Any push against an end to those lawsuits would be the physicians themselves being more efficient at their job. What does that have to do with the hospital's responsibility?