Okay, I’ll accept the mantle: If you think it’s better that there not be a private remedy for really egregious negligence and malice, then Korea is definitely the place for you.
Let’s take the example most relevant to the readers of this blog: Why do I and every other lawyer in town have to turn my back on the wretched masses of English teachers?
It ain’t because we’re callous, or because we hate English teachers (at first) — it’s because there’s nothing we can do to help. The American justice system allows for the possibility of civil damages that tip the balance of power back toward the approximation of parity.
It’s also a myth that Korea is not a litigious society. Sure, it’s marginally less so than the US, but as Brendon points out that’s only because it countenances a lot more real wrongs without remedies. And getting caught in the maw of Korean litigation is much worse than going through the Anglo=American variety.
Robert, don’t you read in the Korean press nearly every day that one politician is going to sue another over some perceived slight? That’s not litigious? Does Obama regularly threaten to sue Hillary?
Brendon is right. Korea, from a lawyer’s perspective, might be the ultimate “assumption of the risk” society. Enjoy living in what you see as a low-litigation paradise, but pray fervently that you are never injured.
My law school professor John Haley published in 1978 a seminal article on Japan called “The Myth of the Reluctant Litigant” (yours for $9.00 and totally worth it) which debunked the idea that Japan is somehow a “less litigious” society than the United States.
We need to be careful to understand that in the United States people’s disputes get funneled into the civil-justice system, whereas in Japan and Korea a large portion of what we would describe as “civil disputes” are criminalized — the state must intervene actively on behalf of one or the other litigant. People harass each other through the filing of criminal complaints, seeking to have the prosecutors beat up their opponents. Here in Korea, this makes relative social power (i.e., connections, wealth and background) much more important to a Korean litigant — in America justice is much more blind.
I went to University of Washington to study with Prof. Haley and don’t regret the choice (much — some of the other professors drove me insane, and, I’m sure, I drove them insane too). Prof. Haley is at Washington University in St. Louis now, just one more reason to recommend that school to prospective students.
There is also what I would call a hidden form of litigation extortion that I would call “the pay-off”. This happens when one person claims some sort of damages and threatens to go to the police and the other party pays them not to go. I’ve seen this up close several times already, thus I would say it is a myth that Korea is less litigious, rather the mechanisms are different.
Robert, are you desperate to post? Surely you have seen this action as well.
The myth of the Great Frivolous Lawsuit Plague is largely a media creation, helped along with large amounts of cash from large corporations and the insurance industry, which both stand to gain significantly from award caps, tort reform, and bad press for the people and lawfirms pursuing claims against them.
Of course the gold standard is the McDonalds coffee spill case, in which a granny spilled some coffee on herself and turned a stained sweater into $2.9 million…at least that’s the way it was portrayed in the media.
The reality of that case is far less outrageous. The woman actually suffered 3rd degree burns, had to get skin grafts, and spent two weeks in the hospital. And her jury award of $2.9 mil was reduced by the judge to $640,000, and then settled for an amount less than that before appeal. Of course those later details were never widely reported, because they didn’t fit into the framework of the Lawsuits Gone Wild! media frenzy that took place for the next couple years on every news magazine in sight. In fact I’d bet if you ask the average American about that case, they likely have no idea about the specifics and end result, and most probably still believe the plaintiff was basically unharmed and rolling in millions.
The reality is that there are numerous safeguards in place to prevent a flood of frivolous lawsuits from advancing in the legal system. Yes, once in a while an anomaly will sneak through (DC Pants fiasco), but even in those cases trumpeted by the media as the frivolous rule rather than the outlying exception, the final result very often comes down on the side of sanity. Roy Pearson will attest to that.
And yet, there it is, on every paper coffee cup in America, inviting small smiles of good-hearted contempt from foreign visitors, wondering just what America has come to: “Caution, contents are hot”.
And yet, there it is, on every paper coffee cup in America, inviting small smiles of good-hearted contempt from foreign visitors, wondering just what America has come to: “Caution, contents are hot”.
Anyone small-minded enough to harbor any kind of contempt — be it good-hearted or not — toward America because of a few words on a coffee cup and their own ignorance for believing a media myth, can go politely fuck themselves while I shoot a small smile toward them.
Blueballs: You a lawyer? In addition to the stupid warning on the coffee cup, we also have stupid warnings on plastic bags and all sorts of other crap. I’d rather have a society where people took responsibility for their own actions, rather than looking to sue someone every time they slip on a patch of ice.
‘The myth of the Great Frivolous Lawsuit Plague is largely a media creation, helped along with large amounts of cash from large corporations and the insurance industry, which both stand to gain significantly from award caps, tort reform, and bad press for the people and lawfirms pursuing claims against them.
Of course the gold standard is the McDonalds coffee spill case, in which a granny spilled some coffee on herself and turned a stained sweater into $2.9 million…at least that’s the way it was portrayed in the media.
The reality of that case is far less outrageous. The woman actually suffered 3rd degree burns, had to get skin grafts, and spent two weeks in the hospital. And her jury award of $2.9 mil was reduced by the judge to $640,000, and then settled for an amount less than that before appeal. Of course those later details were never widely reported, because they didn’t fit into the framework of the Lawsuits Gone Wild! media frenzy that took place for the next couple years on every news magazine in sight. In fact I’d bet if you ask the average American about that case, they likely have no idea about the specifics and end result, and most probably still believe the plaintiff was basically unharmed and rolling in millions.’
why can’t you write like this all the time?
anyway, you forgot to mention that initially, the old lady just wanted mcdonalds to pay for her medical bills.
One of the running jokes that my pre-law & law school friends always make (and I repeatedly tell them it got old about a year ago) is that “If you see a disclaimer on a product, that means some idiot actually committed that act and sued the company for not putting that warning sign on.” (And then they would just grab a random stuff and make fun of it…)
I don’t know how serious lawsuit pile-up problems are in Korea, but lawsuits in U.S. are absolutely horrendous. I’m more sensitive and attention-focused towards the medical lawsuits (being a pre-med and all…), and some of the horror stories I’m hearing… ugh. Malpractice insurance shouldn’t be as expensive as it is now.
And yeah, that McDonald case is widely misused… wasn’t it the case that the McDonald store was overheating the coffee so that the customers won’t ask for free refills?
On a side note… whenever I see your avatar, it kills me a little inside… T.T
Uhh… wth? Never heard of this, uh, widespread outbreak of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs. Want to enlighten me?
Exactly my point. There isn’t, just as there is no “litigation emergency” either. But it would be simple for people with an agenda to take a few isolated, misunderstood incidents and make a mountain out of a molehill.
But since you haven’t heard of this epidemic, here you go:
Never heard of this, uh, widespread outbreak of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs. Want to enlighten me?
Things like this happen regularly. When I was in the Navy I had wisdom teeth extracted under general anaesthesia recommended by the surgeon (complex impaction); imagine my surprise when I got my hands on the records to find out I was a 20 year-old black male when I was operated upon. I wonder what surgery he got?
Luckily, I came out okay. But imagine they had followed a chart for the 20 year-old black male directing that all his teeth be pulled, or perhaps a penis reduction? Where would I be? In Korea, I would be well and truly out of luck.
Amazon says it’s because the medical staff are ‘generally stubborn’. Right.
You can imagine how things might go in the operating room: ‘Damn it, nurse - can’t you see I’ve already started cutting?’
The book you cite talks about logistics/policy problems, which I also recognize is a huge problem. But people are still suing doctors (as opposed to the hospital, administrators, administration staffs).
Lol I guess I am very sensitive about this issue. (back in the brain: Don’t sue me in the future, GODDAMN IT!)
@ Brendon Carr
But a lot of malpractice lawsuits are centered around the logistics/filing mistakes (like yours, a file-switching which happens too frequently) - which, at least in my opinion, shouldn’t be blamed on doctors, who has no say in the matter.
Many surgeons have a God complex. They truly believe that it should be forbidden to sue them and it angers them incredibly when a patient (and his/her lawyer) has the temerity to do so.
It’s easier for people to blame the lawyers than to take responsibility for their actions.
A lot of surgeons do tend to have a God complex, but it is usually played out when they start having a compulsive urge to stay in the hospital because they truly believe that if they’re not there, people are going to die left and right.
In this day and age, when patients are given so much autonomy over their health care (those that can afford one, of course), the level of complaints that the doctors get (which a lot of them are based on logistics like file-switch) are ridiculous.
If my staff switches files, I am responsible. In fact, today I found that my staff DID misplace something, causing inconvenience (luckily no damage, but still she’s fired now) and I have some explaining to do. Why are the doctors any different?
Because doctors have no say in hiring of the hospital staffs (Oh, just as a clarification, I’m not talking about private practices…). You (lawyer, right?) are both the “skilled” and the “administrator” of the place (I’m assuming, of course), so you’d be responsible for the people that you presumably hired. Not doctors.
I’d rather have a society where people took responsibility for their own actions, rather than looking to sue someone every time they slip on a patch of ice.
I agree completely. And I would also rather have a society where corporations took responsibility for their own actions, rather than using cost/benefit statistical analysis to decide if it’s cheaper to continue poisoning millions of people, or cheaper to pay off the lawsuits that result.
Unfortunately for both of us, there are always large gaps in both individual and corporate responsibility, and the legal system is there to hold both responsible.
A few frivolous lawsuits and some harmless warning labels are a small price to pay for the advantages of a legal system that gives the consumer a very real and accessible system to seek redress. If you subtract the cost end (which comes primarily from the threat of lawsuits) of the cost/benefit analysis, what are you left with? Zero incentive toward responsible business practices.
I’m not a fan of a sue-first mentality, but I’m even less a fan of a system that would put severe restrictions on an individual’s right to file a lawsuit, because the result would be even more disastrous. The American legal system isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s actually very efficient in weeding out the frivolous and providing enough deterrents to the ice-slippers (contingency, lengthy appeals process, directed verdicts, summary judgment), so that it becomes very expensive and time-consuming to pursue a baseless suit. Ask Brendon…lawyers aren’t interested in spending thousands of hours on a contingency case unless there’s some merit and very good likelihood of a payday involved.
Never heard of this, uh, widespread outbreak of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs. Want to enlighten me?
The last report I read put the estimate at 100,000 Americans dying every year from preventable medical errors.
why can’t you write like this all the time?
I’m tripping on shrooms and won’t remember any of this tomorrow.
anyway, you forgot to mention that initially, the old lady just wanted mcdonalds to pay for her medical bills.
You’re right. They could have settled for 20 grand and not had an ounce of bad publicity. Instead McDonalds kept escalating, treated the woman unbelievably callously, and ultimately were found liable because evidence was presented that they knew about the problem for a decade yet refused to do anything about it despite a long history of settling lawsuits with scalded customers (more than 700 if I remember correctly).
That old lady and her lawsuit actually forced McDonalds to make changes to their business practice that prevented thousands of future injuries to consumers. Yet it was painted as “frivolous” and an example of a legal system gone mad. Simply mind-boggling.
I just now remembered, that last Tuesday while I was strapped to the table about to undergo a C-section, that some “official looking” person who I hadn’t seen before (and wouldn’t see again) popped her head around the curtain holding a clipboad, and asked me my name, and what kind of surgery I was to have…
I thought it was weird at the time - “Like, the doc’s ready to go with the scalpel in her hand, and you have to ask me this? WTF?” She was clearly double-checking…
they got to change the law, so that medical malpractice is capped just like in Europe.
I heard 3 things.
Unconfirmed. Plaintiff only wins 20% of the award to take home. 80% to the lawyer.
Europe has a cap and there’s a specific set price for each.
Notes in the chart used to be a LOT shorter. Now, a significant time is spent on making notes instead of time with the patient.
Gee, thanks, lawyers.
Trash like Jonathan Edwards and co deserve hell and fire and brimestone. Remember, 80% of the award is to the lawyer.
If you really want National Healthcare in the US, then be fair. Change the law so the lawman stops making money off of patients and doctors, and increases costs of healthcare for everyone.
Interesting factoid.
#1. No party’s Presidential candidate, Democratic nor Repulbican is talking malpractice reform.
#2. George W. Bush is all for medical malpractice reform. Yet another reason I like him.
#3. Democratic Party reels in a huge lot from lawyers and their union.
The best way to take care of lawsuits in the U.S. is simple: Force the loser to pay the court and legal costs of both parties. That’s how it works in the UK. Think of it: no more John Edwardses.
Unconfirmed. Plaintiff only wins 20% of the award to take home. 80% to the lawyer…. Trash like [John] Edwards and co deserve hell and fire and brimestone. Remember, 80% of the award is to the lawyer.
The reason you can’t confirm this assertion is because it’s not true. No lawyers’ professional association would permit an 80% contingent fee, because it would be deemed unconscionable. Lawyers’ fees, according to rules of professional conduct, must be reasonable.
I am sure there have been cases where a client only ends up with 20% of the award in his or her pocket, though. The reason? The client is responsible for out-of-pocket expenses, which in complex cases with low payoffs can include a lot of money spent on expert witnesses. Should that be considered the lawyer’s fee, or something for which the lawyer is responsible?
So, Dogbertt, you don’t seem to understand that the doctor won’t do certain things for you or not see you if you have public aid as health insurance, or limit you to 1 problem in 15 minutes, because he’s more concerned about profit, charting, coding, and lawsuits.
They won’t even let us use abbreviations anymore, because people have won lawsuits.
“Nimrod.” That’s funny. When I was a kid, that was my oldest brother’s favorite slur. How the hell did the towel jockey (or whatever) at the Tower of Babel get to be a slur? Gives a fellow hope …
Since I know and have known scores of doctors here, I am given to believe that Anglo prejudice vis-a vis doctors and lawyers (former good, latter bad) is reversed in Korea. Doctors claim that Koreans think doctors are chiselers and lawyers are honest joes. Is this true or am I a victim of selection bias?
33 Comments
It’d be nice if someone would take up the role of devil’s advocate on this one. If it could be done without Korea bashing, it’d be supernice.
Okay, I’ll accept the mantle: If you think it’s better that there not be a private remedy for really egregious negligence and malice, then Korea is definitely the place for you.
Let’s take the example most relevant to the readers of this blog: Why do I and every other lawyer in town have to turn my back on the wretched masses of English teachers?
It ain’t because we’re callous, or because we hate English teachers (at first) — it’s because there’s nothing we can do to help. The American justice system allows for the possibility of civil damages that tip the balance of power back toward the approximation of parity.
It’s also a myth that Korea is not a litigious society. Sure, it’s marginally less so than the US, but as Brendon points out that’s only because it countenances a lot more real wrongs without remedies. And getting caught in the maw of Korean litigation is much worse than going through the Anglo=American variety.
Robert, don’t you read in the Korean press nearly every day that one politician is going to sue another over some perceived slight? That’s not litigious? Does Obama regularly threaten to sue Hillary?
Brendon is right. Korea, from a lawyer’s perspective, might be the ultimate “assumption of the risk” society. Enjoy living in what you see as a low-litigation paradise, but pray fervently that you are never injured.
My law school professor John Haley published in 1978 a seminal article on Japan called “The Myth of the Reluctant Litigant” (yours for $9.00 and totally worth it) which debunked the idea that Japan is somehow a “less litigious” society than the United States.
We need to be careful to understand that in the United States people’s disputes get funneled into the civil-justice system, whereas in Japan and Korea a large portion of what we would describe as “civil disputes” are criminalized — the state must intervene actively on behalf of one or the other litigant. People harass each other through the filing of criminal complaints, seeking to have the prosecutors beat up their opponents. Here in Korea, this makes relative social power (i.e., connections, wealth and background) much more important to a Korean litigant — in America justice is much more blind.
I went to University of Washington to study with Prof. Haley and don’t regret the choice (much — some of the other professors drove me insane, and, I’m sure, I drove them insane too). Prof. Haley is at Washington University in St. Louis now, just one more reason to recommend that school to prospective students.
There is also what I would call a hidden form of litigation
extortionthat I would call “the pay-off”. This happens when one person claims some sort of damages and threatens to go to the police and the other party pays them not to go. I’ve seen this up close several times already, thus I would say it is a myth that Korea is less litigious, rather the mechanisms are different.Robert, are you desperate to post? Surely you have seen this action as well.
The myth of the Great Frivolous Lawsuit Plague is largely a media creation, helped along with large amounts of cash from large corporations and the insurance industry, which both stand to gain significantly from award caps, tort reform, and bad press for the people and lawfirms pursuing claims against them.
Of course the gold standard is the McDonalds coffee spill case, in which a granny spilled some coffee on herself and turned a stained sweater into $2.9 million…at least that’s the way it was portrayed in the media.
The reality of that case is far less outrageous. The woman actually suffered 3rd degree burns, had to get skin grafts, and spent two weeks in the hospital. And her jury award of $2.9 mil was reduced by the judge to $640,000, and then settled for an amount less than that before appeal. Of course those later details were never widely reported, because they didn’t fit into the framework of the Lawsuits Gone Wild! media frenzy that took place for the next couple years on every news magazine in sight. In fact I’d bet if you ask the average American about that case, they likely have no idea about the specifics and end result, and most probably still believe the plaintiff was basically unharmed and rolling in millions.
The reality is that there are numerous safeguards in place to prevent a flood of frivolous lawsuits from advancing in the legal system. Yes, once in a while an anomaly will sneak through (DC Pants fiasco), but even in those cases trumpeted by the media as the frivolous rule rather than the outlying exception, the final result very often comes down on the side of sanity. Roy Pearson will attest to that.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ne.....02006.html
http://www.tortdeform.com/arch....._laws.html
And yet, there it is, on every paper coffee cup in America, inviting small smiles of good-hearted contempt from foreign visitors, wondering just what America has come to: “Caution, contents are hot”.
And?
Anyone small-minded enough to harbor any kind of contempt — be it good-hearted or not — toward America because of a few words on a coffee cup and their own ignorance for believing a media myth, can go politely fuck themselves while I shoot a small smile toward them.
Blueballs: You a lawyer? In addition to the stupid warning on the coffee cup, we also have stupid warnings on plastic bags and all sorts of other crap. I’d rather have a society where people took responsibility for their own actions, rather than looking to sue someone every time they slip on a patch of ice.
iheartblueballs wrote the following in post #7:
‘The myth of the Great Frivolous Lawsuit Plague is largely a media creation, helped along with large amounts of cash from large corporations and the insurance industry, which both stand to gain significantly from award caps, tort reform, and bad press for the people and lawfirms pursuing claims against them.
Of course the gold standard is the McDonalds coffee spill case, in which a granny spilled some coffee on herself and turned a stained sweater into $2.9 million…at least that’s the way it was portrayed in the media.
The reality of that case is far less outrageous. The woman actually suffered 3rd degree burns, had to get skin grafts, and spent two weeks in the hospital. And her jury award of $2.9 mil was reduced by the judge to $640,000, and then settled for an amount less than that before appeal. Of course those later details were never widely reported, because they didn’t fit into the framework of the Lawsuits Gone Wild! media frenzy that took place for the next couple years on every news magazine in sight. In fact I’d bet if you ask the average American about that case, they likely have no idea about the specifics and end result, and most probably still believe the plaintiff was basically unharmed and rolling in millions.’
why can’t you write like this all the time?
anyway, you forgot to mention that initially, the old lady just wanted mcdonalds to pay for her medical bills.
@ iheartblueballs
One of the running jokes that my pre-law & law school friends always make (and I repeatedly tell them it got old about a year ago) is that “If you see a disclaimer on a product, that means some idiot actually committed that act and sued the company for not putting that warning sign on.” (And then they would just grab a random stuff and make fun of it…)
I don’t know how serious lawsuit pile-up problems are in Korea, but lawsuits in U.S. are absolutely horrendous. I’m more sensitive and attention-focused towards the medical lawsuits (being a pre-med and all…), and some of the horror stories I’m hearing… ugh. Malpractice insurance shouldn’t be as expensive as it is now.
And yeah, that McDonald case is widely misused… wasn’t it the case that the McDonald store was overheating the coffee so that the customers won’t ask for free refills?
On a side note… whenever I see your avatar, it kills me a little inside… T.T
… ^^
Hey, we can easily make doctors scapegoats just like some enjoy making lawyers scapegoats.
I mean, tell me why malpractice insurance shouldn’t be high when you have so many cases of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs? Right?
@ dogbertt
“I mean, tell me why malpractice insurance shouldn’t be high when you have so many cases of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs? Right?”
Uhh… wth? Never heard of this, uh, widespread outbreak of incompetent doctors amputating healthy limbs. Want to enlighten me?
Exactly my point. There isn’t, just as there is no “litigation emergency” either. But it would be simple for people with an agenda to take a few isolated, misunderstood incidents and make a mountain out of a molehill.
But since you haven’t heard of this epidemic, here you go:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/produ.....oding=UTF8
Consider yourself enlightened.
Things like this happen regularly. When I was in the Navy I had wisdom teeth extracted under general anaesthesia recommended by the surgeon (complex impaction); imagine my surprise when I got my hands on the records to find out I was a 20 year-old black male when I was operated upon. I wonder what surgery he got?
Luckily, I came out okay. But imagine they had followed a chart for the 20 year-old black male directing that all his teeth be pulled, or perhaps a penis reduction? Where would I be? In Korea, I would be well and truly out of luck.
Amazon says it’s because the medical staff are ‘generally stubborn’. Right.
You can imagine how things might go in the operating room: ‘Damn it, nurse - can’t you see I’ve already started cutting?’
@ Dogbertt
The book you cite talks about logistics/policy problems, which I also recognize is a huge problem. But people are still suing doctors (as opposed to the hospital, administrators, administration staffs).
Lol I guess I am very sensitive about this issue. (back in the brain: Don’t sue me in the future, GODDAMN IT!)
@ Brendon Carr
But a lot of malpractice lawsuits are centered around the logistics/filing mistakes (like yours, a file-switching which happens too frequently) - which, at least in my opinion, shouldn’t be blamed on doctors, who has no say in the matter.
Many surgeons have a God complex. They truly believe that it should be forbidden to sue them and it angers them incredibly when a patient (and his/her lawyer) has the temerity to do so.
It’s easier for people to blame the lawyers than to take responsibility for their actions.
A lot of surgeons do tend to have a God complex, but it is usually played out when they start having a compulsive urge to stay in the hospital because they truly believe that if they’re not there, people are going to die left and right.
In this day and age, when patients are given so much autonomy over their health care (those that can afford one, of course), the level of complaints that the doctors get (which a lot of them are based on logistics like file-switch) are ridiculous.
If my staff switches files, I am responsible. In fact, today I found that my staff DID misplace something, causing inconvenience (luckily no damage, but still she’s fired now) and I have some explaining to do. Why are the doctors any different?
Because doctors have no say in hiring of the hospital staffs (Oh, just as a clarification, I’m not talking about private practices…). You (lawyer, right?) are both the “skilled” and the “administrator” of the place (I’m assuming, of course), so you’d be responsible for the people that you presumably hired. Not doctors.
I agree completely. And I would also rather have a society where corporations took responsibility for their own actions, rather than using cost/benefit statistical analysis to decide if it’s cheaper to continue poisoning millions of people, or cheaper to pay off the lawsuits that result.
Unfortunately for both of us, there are always large gaps in both individual and corporate responsibility, and the legal system is there to hold both responsible.
A few frivolous lawsuits and some harmless warning labels are a small price to pay for the advantages of a legal system that gives the consumer a very real and accessible system to seek redress. If you subtract the cost end (which comes primarily from the threat of lawsuits) of the cost/benefit analysis, what are you left with? Zero incentive toward responsible business practices.
I’m not a fan of a sue-first mentality, but I’m even less a fan of a system that would put severe restrictions on an individual’s right to file a lawsuit, because the result would be even more disastrous. The American legal system isn’t perfect by any means, but it’s actually very efficient in weeding out the frivolous and providing enough deterrents to the ice-slippers (contingency, lengthy appeals process, directed verdicts, summary judgment), so that it becomes very expensive and time-consuming to pursue a baseless suit. Ask Brendon…lawyers aren’t interested in spending thousands of hours on a contingency case unless there’s some merit and very good likelihood of a payday involved.
The last report I read put the estimate at 100,000 Americans dying every year from preventable medical errors.
I’m tripping on shrooms and won’t remember any of this tomorrow.
You’re right. They could have settled for 20 grand and not had an ounce of bad publicity. Instead McDonalds kept escalating, treated the woman unbelievably callously, and ultimately were found liable because evidence was presented that they knew about the problem for a decade yet refused to do anything about it despite a long history of settling lawsuits with scalded customers (more than 700 if I remember correctly).
That old lady and her lawsuit actually forced McDonalds to make changes to their business practice that prevented thousands of future injuries to consumers. Yet it was painted as “frivolous” and an example of a legal system gone mad. Simply mind-boggling.
I have never agreed with Iheartblueballs more than I have in this thread.
I’m even willing to recant and say the Borat movie was funny.
I just now remembered, that last Tuesday while I was strapped to the table about to undergo a C-section, that some “official looking” person who I hadn’t seen before (and wouldn’t see again) popped her head around the curtain holding a clipboad, and asked me my name, and what kind of surgery I was to have…
I thought it was weird at the time - “Like, the doc’s ready to go with the scalpel in her hand, and you have to ask me this? WTF?” She was clearly double-checking…
All good though.
I’ve been slapped with a frivilous lawsuit myself AND by a Korean nonetheless. It’s amazing how quickly assimilation works…
they got to change the law, so that medical malpractice is capped just like in Europe.
I heard 3 things.
Unconfirmed. Plaintiff only wins 20% of the award to take home. 80% to the lawyer.
Europe has a cap and there’s a specific set price for each.
Notes in the chart used to be a LOT shorter. Now, a significant time is spent on making notes instead of time with the patient.
Gee, thanks, lawyers.
Trash like Jonathan Edwards and co deserve hell and fire and brimestone. Remember, 80% of the award is to the lawyer.
If you really want National Healthcare in the US, then be fair. Change the law so the lawman stops making money off of patients and doctors, and increases costs of healthcare for everyone.
Interesting factoid.
#1. No party’s Presidential candidate, Democratic nor Repulbican is talking malpractice reform.
#2. George W. Bush is all for medical malpractice reform. Yet another reason I like him.
#3. Democratic Party reels in a huge lot from lawyers and their union.
Go to hell. Make an honest buck.
The best way to take care of lawsuits in the U.S. is simple: Force the loser to pay the court and legal costs of both parties. That’s how it works in the UK. Think of it: no more John Edwardses.
The reason you can’t confirm this assertion is because it’s not true. No lawyers’ professional association would permit an 80% contingent fee, because it would be deemed unconscionable. Lawyers’ fees, according to rules of professional conduct, must be reasonable.
I am sure there have been cases where a client only ends up with 20% of the award in his or her pocket, though. The reason? The client is responsible for out-of-pocket expenses, which in complex cases with low payoffs can include a lot of money spent on expert witnesses. Should that be considered the lawyer’s fee, or something for which the lawyer is responsible?
I’d much rather have a physician who makes a lot of file notes (e.g., cut off RIGHT leg, not LEFT leg), than one who doesn’t.
As for the rest of wjk’s tripe, as Brendon says, it’s uninformed bullshit.
And, lawyers don’t have a union, nimrod.
Association of Trial Lawyers of America,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A.....of_America
Thanks for the clarification, Mr. Carr.
So, Dogbertt, you don’t seem to understand that the doctor won’t do certain things for you or not see you if you have public aid as health insurance, or limit you to 1 problem in 15 minutes, because he’s more concerned about profit, charting, coding, and lawsuits.
They won’t even let us use abbreviations anymore, because people have won lawsuits.
“Nimrod.” That’s funny. When I was a kid, that was my oldest brother’s favorite slur. How the hell did the towel jockey (or whatever) at the Tower of Babel get to be a slur? Gives a fellow hope …
Since I know and have known scores of doctors here, I am given to believe that Anglo prejudice vis-a vis doctors and lawyers (former good, latter bad) is reversed in Korea. Doctors claim that Koreans think doctors are chiselers and lawyers are honest joes. Is this true or am I a victim of selection bias?