Tort "Reform" Gone Bad. And the Personal Injury Round-Up

This first piece comes from Medical Economics, and was written by a Nevada physician that had been active in the tort “reform” movement there. He recounts the story of clear negligence — admitted by the pathologist that read the slides — and the jury verdict notwithstanding the evidence in favor of the doctor. The author and tort “reformer,” medical oncologist Arnold Wax, is appalled and now understands the ramifications of what he brought to his state. (h/t Kevin, M.D.) From the article:

It appeared that the case would be resolved quickly, considering that the defendant freely admitted his error. However, this turned out to be far from true.

…

As I’d expected, the jury found the original pathologist negligent. But, to my surprise, Mary wasn’t awarded any damages… The jurors reasoned that the pathologist had not acted maliciously, and that if he were found liable for a monetary award, he might leave the state. They were likely influenced by political ads that ran during the state’s tort reform ballot campaign, describing physicians who were leaving Nevada because of its malpractice crisis.

That article, which should be read in full, appeared today and just missed the Personal Injury Round-Up by Brooks Schuelke that appeared in my feed reader at the same time. As usual, Brooks brings all the news that’s fit to link.

Share

Related posts:

  1. Personal Injury Law Round-Up #42
  2. Personal Injury Law Round Up #64….
  3. Personal Injury Law Round-Up #41
  4. Personal Injury Law Round-Up #45
  5. Personal Injury Law Round-Up #46

Tags:

June 6, 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.