Consumer Law

Med mal caps work... against med mal victims, that is.

By Kia Franklin

Eric Turkewitz points out that when folks claim that capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice claims "works," they often conveniently neglect to explain what "working" really means. He writes:

But what, exactly does it mean for a statute to "work" when it reduces the ability of the most badly injured individuals to recover for their loss?

Does offering government protectionism for tortfeasors mean it works?

Does stopping those who've been victimized from recovering from their loss mean it works?

Does destroying the concept of personal responsibility for one's actions mean it works?

If the objective is to offer windfalls to those whose negligence has injured others then one might say it works. But that doesn't makes it good public policy.

Eric then points out former posts on the subject from his blog, including some that highlight the stories of former tort "reformers" whose personal experiences have caused them to come around to the side of victims. Well worth the read and something to add to your "debunking tort 'reform'" file.

Eric concludes by offering this gem of a definition for tort "reform", based in part on the story of med mal tort "reformers" gone good: Tort "reform" is an idea promulgated by people who've never been badly injured by the negligence of others.

Now that works.

Full post as published by TortDeform.com on April 15, 2009 (boomark / email).