Tuesday, January 1, 2008

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)

Labels: tort reform

posted by Eric Turkewitz
Permanent Link

Comments:

who pays for office based procedures of consequence?

Who prevents cherry picking for sickies?

# posted by  rolsto : January 01, 2008 12:31 PM

 

Yeah, it sucks when reality strikes home. It hurts so much less when it's someone else who pays the price for your philosophy.

# posted by  shg : January 01, 2008 8:04 PM

 

Did you actually read the article eric?

re: Craig Backer of Caliente, near Bakersfield, suffered headaches for five years and eventually lost hearing in his left ear. Although the former Marine visited a Veterans Affairs hospital half a dozen times, doctors told him his condition was temporary and never performed advanced screening tests, according to his family.

The VA tort system has nothing to do with California's in the second example. But hey why let that fact interfere with your agenda.

# posted by  Anonymous : January 03, 2008 10:34 PM

 

I think the article is pretty clear, and it parallels my own experience when I try to find CA counsel for people who have a potential CA med mal case: It's exceptionally difficult to find any med mal attorney to even look at a case because doctors have de facto immunity in CA due to the caps.

The first person (Stewart) in the article was turned down a couple dozen times and the second one (Backer) turned down six times because the economic loss wasn't high enough.

If you can't even get in the door for an evaluation, then I think it is clear that the caps have the effect of granting immunity to the medical community.

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : January 04, 2008 6:14 AM

 

It is also clear eric you have no understanding of the VA tort system. In the second case, the patient going to multiple lawyers is meaningless because in most circumstances you can't sue the VA. Please do tell me why I am informing a malpractice attorney of this issue.

# posted by  Anonymous : January 04, 2008 5:49 PM

 

The VA can be sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act.

# posted by  Eric Turkewitz : January 08, 2008 7:50 PM

 

Guess you never tried to sue the VA eric. Why don't you look at how "easy" it is.

# posted by  Anonymous : January 16, 2008 7:24 PM

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

<$BlogBacklinkTitle$>  
<$BlogBacklinkSnippet$>

posted by <$BlogBacklinkAuthor$> @ <$BlogBacklinkDateTime$>

Create a Link

<< Home

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.