Another Tort "Reformer" Sees The Light

Dr. Dave Stewart is a California anesthesiologist. He supported tort “reform.” Then his 72 year old mother died after knee surgery from an undiagnosed bowel obstruction. When the family tried to hire a lawyer, they were turned down by two dozen different medical malpractice attorneys. (LA Times: Lacking Lawyers, Justice is Denied)

Why were they turned down? Because California has a $250,000 cap on non-economic damages (pain and suffering). And since his mom wasn’t working, it meant that any recovery was very limited. When you figure in the tens of thousands of dollars that might be needed for the case, and the vast amount of time, and the high risk of taking such cases, the lawyers weren’t interested.

Now guess what? Dr. Stewart isn’t such a fan of tort “reform” anymore. Surprised? Me either. It happens like all the time. Remember tort “reformer” Robert Bork? He sued big time for his injuries. Ever hear of Frank Cornelius? He wrote in the New York Times in 1994 how he was “crushed by his own reform.” In fact, the blog TortDeform has a gallery of what they term the “hypocrites of tort reform.”

Perhaps these people fall in the category of, “What’s good for thee is not good for me.” Or, perhaps, they have simply never given full thought to the true ramifications of their actions.

(hat tip: Day on Torts)

(Eric Turkewitz is a personal injury attorney in New York)

Share

Related posts:

  1. Target Hit for $3M in Defamation Punitives (And Tort "Reformer" Sees Opportunity)
  2. Tort "Reformer" Michael Savage Brings Lawsuit
  3. Tea Party and Tort Reform
  4. Tort “Reform” Claims more Victims
  5. The Conservative Attempt to Federalize Tort “Reform”

Tags:

January 1, 2008 · Comments Off ·

Comments are closed.

The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.