Santorum's Wife Sued Doctor For $500,000, Despite Senator's Calls For Tort Reform

[gaseous maximus]

Excuse me, but it appears that Santorum's reforms, would have offered the med. profession, some protection from that greedy wife of his?

 

[mugsy]

There is a little truth to that statement. However, another problem is the unrealistic expectations some clients have regarding the value of their cases in today's enviornment. On another note, I doubt you'd want damages capped if a bad doctor injured you. Truth be told, I don't believe anyone here can honestly say they'd support caps if it impacted them personally.

JB,

I can say, with a straight face, that I would and do support caps under certain circumstances. I don't think there is any good reason to cap actual damages and or medical cost recovery no matter what that costs. However, punitive damages are a different issue. Now, perhaps if a lawyers fees could only be based on either a fixed fee or a percentage of actual damages versus a percentage of punitive damages that might mitigate against the worst effects of contingency fees and unlimited damages.
Look JB I am not saying I know the full answer but it is clear that there is an industry that now feeds on ambulance chasing and bogus or at least questionable lawsuits. Likewise there is a closely related industry that thrives on blackmailing companies with the mere threat of possible runaway lawsuits.

In truth, I'd like to see the law simplified across the board so that lawyers are much less necessary in general. Small claims limits could be raised, etc. Again, I realize I don't have all the answers but I can see broken and know it needs to be fixed.

 

[JB Books]

Mugsy, you've imbibed the Kool aid. There are many less frivilous lawsuits than THEY would have you believe.

 

[JB Books]

Excuse me, but it appears that Santorum's reforms, would have offered the med. profession, some protection from that greedy wife of his?

Don't be reasonable. Reason is unwelcome here.

 

[ronny]

7th Amendment Republicans and conservative Democrats

Well, that didn't help much.

 

[Billybob]

I will give the legal eagles their due in that they try to police their own via Bar investigations and discipline.

This woman has filed a few BAR complaints, contact her on Facebook and ask how they went.

http://familyrights.us/ok/dana/10-24-11/

http://familyrights.us/ok/dana_lawhon_story.html

 

[Billybob]

Most of the time, yes, you have to prove the underlying case. So for example, if you go to a lawyer with a slip and fall case and your lawyer blows your statute of limitations by not properly filing your case in time, you'd still have to prove the case was viable. In other words that your case was good to begin with.

But if the case has been decided and the client claims it was wrong because of legal malpractice what then, "a do over"?

 

[JB Books]

Well, that didn't help much.

Candidates that are more concrened with the rights of working people than paying tribute to their corporate donors.

 

[JB Books]

But if the case has been decided and the client claims it was wrong because of legal malpractice what then, "a do over"?

Billybob, it depends on the type of case. If a case has already been decided, then typically that's it. The term is res judicata, latin for "already decided." If the person can PROVE there was a fraud on the court, or have some basis to introduce new evidence (such as the DNA that frees people from time to time), then maybe they can get a technical "d over."

 

[dennishoddy]

Meh, she's married to a dude who speaks out against oral secks. She deserves some pain and suffering money.

Best post of this whole thread.