Re: Propositon 12

[Guest guest]

Since I don't practice law, I couldn't care less. My only concern about Prop

12 is that everybody thinks it's going to fix the malpractice problem. The

only thing that will fix the malpractice problem is to stop malpractice.

In today's paper there's an article that >50,000 per year die in hospitals

due to medical errors every year.

I don't mind cutting down on damages for pain and suffering so long as people

are not denied access to the courts. But what do you do when your mother is

neglected and mistreated in the nursing home and suffers agony and injury from

this neglect and mistreatment which leads to her death.

Since she's retired, she is earning no income, so she won't have any damages

for lost income or future income. Since her damages are capped for pain and

suffering, the perpetrators of this neglect and mistreatment won't pay much of

anything for their conduct.

I certainly favor some sort of system that will cull out the Mc's

coffee and Mc's made me fat cases, and there are ways to do that within

the

system. We have certainly not done a good job of that in the legal profession

up to now. That needs to change.

But the medical profession has much to answer to for failing to police its

ranks and kick out the bad doctors. Perhaps 5% of the malpractice cases are

done by the same doctors. History is crammed full of cases where some butcher

was allowed to go on butchering for years and the medical profession did nothing

to stop him.

Further, people are in denial about the role of the insurance companies in

setting malpractice premiums too high. Look at the figures on claims paid

versus premiums charged and you'll say to yourself, " hmmmmm, what happened to

the

millions of dollars that were collected in premiums and not paid out in

claims? " The insurance industry is one of the most corrupt industries in the

country and the egregious practices that it's allowed to get away with are all

legal. It's grand when you can screw both the public and the medical profession

you're insuring at the same time.

So, I predict that Prop 12 will pass. I predict that malpractice premiums

will not improve much. I predict that there will be no significant improvement

in the occurrence rates of medical malpractice. I would predict that people

will one day wake up and see what has happened to them, except that we're such

a nation of sheep now that most probably won't notice. Amazing what we can

adapt to when we're conditioned to accept whatever happens to us without

complaint, and when remedies are systematically denied to us. It doesn't take

long

for that to happen. Only a few years.

So I wish my friends who practice medicine the best in getting their

insurance premiums down to manageable proportions, but I'm not betting the ranch

that

Prop 12 will accomplish that.

And I feel sorry for the poor victims of malpractice who will have no

effective remedy for their injuries.

The insurance companies and the bad docs will be celebrating together. Maybe

at the Marriott in Albuquerque.

Gene G.

[Guest guest]

Just a question. Does anyone know what else may be tied to this proposition

that appears to be a good thing?

Danny L.

Owner/NREMT-P

Panhandle Emergency Training Services And Response

(PETSAR)

Office

FAX

[Guest guest]

I have never had a malpractice suit. My malpractice insurance is around

$30,000.00 per year. Is that fair? You should see what it is for several of

the guys who have a few suits. You practice medicine (or EMS) long enough

and a mistake will happen or a bad outcome will occur. The TSBME is

disciplining increased numbers of physicians for quality of care issues and

all malpractice settlements are reported to the board and to the National

Practitioner Data Bank. There are problems with medicine keeping its own

house clean, but they pale in comparison to the problems with personal

injury trial lawyers seeking clients with and taking cases on a contingency

basis (with the lawyers often receiving 60% of the judgment or award). When

the worker's compensation system underwent tort reform, lawsuits and

worker's compensation insurance premiums went down. Perhaps we should adopt

English rule system here (the loser of the suit pays all fees including

opposing barrister costs and no contingency system for lawyers).

There are problems on both sides of the fence. Perhaps the

legislature/congress, which is made up primarily of lawyers, will police the

lawyers. Yeah right....

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

Re: Propositon 12

Since I don't practice law, I couldn't care less. My only concern about

Prop

12 is that everybody thinks it's going to fix the malpractice problem. The

only thing that will fix the malpractice problem is to stop malpractice.

In today's paper there's an article that >50,000 per year die in hospitals

due to medical errors every year.

I don't mind cutting down on damages for pain and suffering so long as

people

are not denied access to the courts. But what do you do when your mother is

neglected and mistreated in the nursing home and suffers agony and injury

from

this neglect and mistreatment which leads to her death.

Since she's retired, she is earning no income, so she won't have any damages

for lost income or future income. Since her damages are capped for pain and

suffering, the perpetrators of this neglect and mistreatment won't pay much

of

anything for their conduct.

I certainly favor some sort of system that will cull out the Mc's

coffee and Mc's made me fat cases, and there are ways to do that

within the

system. We have certainly not done a good job of that in the legal

profession

up to now. That needs to change.

But the medical profession has much to answer to for failing to police its

ranks and kick out the bad doctors. Perhaps 5% of the malpractice cases are

done by the same doctors. History is crammed full of cases where some

butcher

was allowed to go on butchering for years and the medical profession did

nothing

to stop him.

Further, people are in denial about the role of the insurance companies in

setting malpractice premiums too high. Look at the figures on claims paid

versus premiums charged and you'll say to yourself, " hmmmmm, what happened

to the

millions of dollars that were collected in premiums and not paid out in

claims? " The insurance industry is one of the most corrupt industries in

the

country and the egregious practices that it's allowed to get away with are

all

legal. It's grand when you can screw both the public and the medical

profession

you're insuring at the same time.

So, I predict that Prop 12 will pass. I predict that malpractice premiums

will not improve much. I predict that there will be no significant

improvement

in the occurrence rates of medical malpractice. I would predict that people

will one day wake up and see what has happened to them, except that we're

such

a nation of sheep now that most probably won't notice. Amazing what we can

adapt to when we're conditioned to accept whatever happens to us without

complaint, and when remedies are systematically denied to us. It doesn't

take long

for that to happen. Only a few years.

So I wish my friends who practice medicine the best in getting their

insurance premiums down to manageable proportions, but I'm not betting the

ranch that

Prop 12 will accomplish that.

And I feel sorry for the poor victims of malpractice who will have no

effective remedy for their injuries.

The insurance companies and the bad docs will be celebrating together.

Maybe

at the Marriott in Albuquerque.

Gene G.

[Guest guest]

Since I started this, I will make some additional points for clarification.

I do not intend to get into a flame war with my good friend , but I do

want to point out some additional things. See, I have this problem: I hate

insurance companies.

Read down, please.

Gene

In a message dated 8/1/2003 7:33:35 AM Central Daylight Time,

bbledsoe@... writes:>

>

>

> I have never had a malpractice suit. My malpractice insurance is around

> $30,000.00 per year. Is that fair?

Nothing fair about it! My only concern is that we correct the real reason

for such high premiums. Everybody says it's because of the trial lawyers, but

every time I look at insurance industry stats I completely fail to find any

link between premiums and settlement/judgment figures. We'll see if capping

non-ecos fixes it. I'm afraid it won't, that's all. If it fixes the problem,

I'll be in the cheering section.

You should see what it is for several of > the guys who have a few suits. You

> practice medicine (or EMS) long enoughand a mistake will happen or a bad

> outcome will occur.

This is why I advocate the establishment of a screening board to determine

which claims should go to settlement and which would go to trial. One mistake

should not necessarily subject one to a ridiculous increase in premiums. But,

the insurance industry treats everybody that way. Have one fender bender in

40 years of driving and see what happens to your motor vehicle insurance.

Insurance companies will use any and every method they can get away with to

screw

everybody in sight, insured and victim alike. Will Prop 12 fix that problem?

The TSBME is > disciplining increased numbers of physicians for quality of

> care issues and all malpractice settlements are reported to the board and to

> the National Practitioner Data Bank.

Well, I remain the skeptic. True, TSBME has received some bad publicity for

not doing anything and has made some weak wheezing sounds about improving,

but it still lacks the staff and budget to do the job that needs to be done.

Whether or not it really has the will to discipline for bad quality of care is a

question that the jury is still out on, as far as I can tell.

There are problems with medicine keeping its own> house clean, but they pale

> in comparison to the problems with personalinjury trial lawyers seeking

> clients with and taking cases on a contingencybasis (with the lawyers often

> receiving 60% of the judgment or award). Whenthe worker's compensation system

> underwent tort reform, lawsuits andworker's compensation insurance premiums

went

> down. Perhaps we should adoptEnglish rule system here (the loser of the suit

> pays all fees includingopposing barrister costs and no contingency system for

> lawyers).

>

The lawyers do a pretty good job of getting rid of the outright crooks,

swindlers, drunks and incompetents. Check the Texas Bar Journal every month and

you'll see that we do disbar plenty of lawyers on a regular basis. However,

under our system of law where the courts are open to everyone it is quite

difficult to draw lines about what's a frivolous suit and what's not. We

subscribe

in the USA to the tenet that everybody is entitled to his day in court. We're

walking in quicksand when we attempt to cut off a person's access to the

courts. And I think the workers comp solution is working well.

Now, one of the problems that has arisen is with class action suits. That's

the incentive that had driven some of our greedier lawyers to file some of

these cases that have gotten the headlines and resulted in stupendous fees for

some of the lawyers. That's why our blessed ex-attorney general will be

residing at Club Fed for the next four years--blinded by greed. He richly

deserves

this enforced vacation and will lose his law license to boot.

We have not done nearly enough to limit class action suits, and I totally

agree that they have gotten out of hand.

On the subject of contingent fees, the whole story is seldom told. We hear

about the egregious percentages that some attorneys receive out of the

judgment. I personally have no knowledge of an attorney ever getting 60% of an

award, but I can't say it hasn't happened.

The rationale behind contingent fees is to allow poor folks to hire good

lawyers to get representation. Under the contingent fee agreement the lawyer

takes the risk on the fee. The lawyer pays all expenses of pursuing the case

out

of pocket, and these expenses can be gigantic. Litigation is extremely

expensive. If the lawyer doesn't get either a settlement or judgment, he gets

nothing and eats the expenses. On the other hand, if he does achieve a

settlement

or jury award, then he takes a percentage based upon, generally, whether or

not the case was settled or tried, at what milestone did the settlement occur

(immediately after filing suit, or after all trial preparation was done and the

case was ready to go to try--the proverbial settlement on the courthouse

steps. Usually the fees for settlement before trial start at 20% or 25%.

Lawyers

usually get 30-40% of a jury award if the case is fully tried or settled

during the case but after all the prep has been done, and only in cases where

appeals are pursued through the appeals courts are higher percentages usually

seen. Take the typical federal case: Either party may appeal the jury verdict

or

court's award to the United States Court of Appeals. That's usually where it

stops unless the case has some question that has to be decided in the US

Supreme Court. Federal litigation is hideously expensive. So the lawyer may be

getting lots per hour or little per hour. Either way, he's financing his

total caseload with the fees from the ones he wins. Plaintiff's lawyers win

less

than 20% of filed cases against physicians because juries are usually very

reluctant to find negligence unless it's so egregious that it screams for

justice.

Some advocate that lawyers should have a fee scale based upon their level of

experience and the difficulty of the case. Those lawyers would keep track of

all expenses, be reimbursed for that, then receive an hourly fee for their

work. Lawyers' hourly fees are quite similar to physicians, although few

lawyers make in a week what an opthalmologist makes in one day doing eye

surgeries.

Perhaps there ought to be some limits written on that. The tobacco lawyers

have collected billions (yep, you read that correctly--billions) in fees, and

that's beyond absurd. Those people are worse than Ken Lay, Martha , and

Fastow put together.

Most lawyers I know make less per year than most doctors I know, but this is

not about what someone ought to make. In this country we profess to have

free enterprise, so whatever a person can legitimately earn legally ought to be

his.

The reason I wrote the post that preceded this was that in yesterday's Dallas

Morning News a column appeared which discussed one Newt Gingrich's new book

about the problems faced by the health care industry. Now, Newtie is not

famous for being a raving liberal. He states these figures, and I do not vouch

for

their correctness: Anywhere from 41,000 to 91,000 people in this country die

in hospitals due to medical errors each year; two million illnesses are

induced by hospitals and 1.5 million by nursing homes annually; a 50 percent

reduction in prescription errors would save 9,000 lives per year.

Why is it that we never hear physicians announce figures such as these and

demand that the bad apples be weeded out and the situation corrected? Probably

for the same reasons that few lawyers bleat about the bad actors in our

profession. We've both got em and we both need to be doing lots more than we

have

done to get rid of them.

Two cases that I know about from the Dallas area illustrate the kinds of

cases I'm talking about. Both these cases are egregious and cost people either

their life or brain.

In one an ER physician gave Verapamil to an unmistakable ventricular tach.

Patient immediately went to asystole and suffered irreparable and devastating

brain damage. Second case, paramedic delivers a seizure patient to ER with a

perfectly good nasotracheal tube in place, 100% sats, and the ER doctor

insists on pulling it and reintubating orally. Trouble is she couldn't

reintubate

and the patient died.

I'm waiting to hear from the TSBME about anything being done to either of

those people, and I expect I'll wait till hell freezes over.

We all hear about the excesses of a few, but are we willing to deprive people

with legitimate claims against those who have destroyed their lives of a

remedy? Do we really want to deprive the children of the parent whose life was

ruined by the doc who gave the verapamil of a place to live and a college

education because their father's ability to earn income came to a screeching

halt

and instead of making $100,000 a year he has to spend that amount for care.

Can't there be a happy medium somewhere in all this?

Can we somehow strike a balance between the rights of individuals to have a

day in court and the rights of people not to be sued and have their lives

ruined by unscrupulous lawyers? I certainly hope so, because with the

situation

the way it is, nobody will win except the insurance companies. We need to

curtail the class action suits, have a way to scrutinize claims and do away

with the frivolous ones, think up a way to keep contingent fees from getting

out of hand without doing away with them altogether, and stop the recurring

malpractice that's being perpetrated upon us by a very few bad doctors. But

we'll also have to get control over the insurance companies. And that's hard to

do because they're among the best organized lobbies in our country. They buy

more legislators than just about any other purchaser. And I understand that

these legislators come with lifetime warranties.

> There are problems on both sides of the fence. Perhaps the

> legislature/congress, which is made up primarily of lawyers, will police the

> lawyers. Yeah right....

Well, , Prop 12 was enacted by that legislature that's made up of

lawyers, so your point is?

Best,

Gene

>

> E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

> Midlothian, Texas

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Mike,

I agree with many of your thoughts. I'm certainly not happy about the

situation with frivolous suits. When I began my practice in 1965 that sort of

thing

was practically unheard of, and if you did file a frivolous suit you might

well be disbarred after the judge tossed you and your client out on your butts.

But there has been a sea change in attitudes. The first terrible thing that

happened to the legal profession was when the Supremes allowed lawyers to

advertise. That started the slippage. I hate that to this day. I still

believe

it's completely unethical and so do most of the reputable lawyers that I know.

Perhaps it's my prejudice or because I'm in a better position to know, but I

will not concede that the doctors have done as well as the lawyers in weeding

out the bad guys. I'm confident that I'm right about that. The problem with

lawyers is that the class action/Mcs sort of lawyer have done nothing

wrong in the eyes of the law as it's interpreted now. We get rid of the drunks,

dopes, and crooks, but we haven't found out how to rein in the greedy. But

then, who has? After all, America's motto is " Greed is Good " isn't it?

Your comment that the contingent fee system encourages abuse is right. It

does. And that's partially because the judiciary has not done even a minimal

job of policing these suits. Judges now are so scared of being politically

incorrect that they do little or nothing to get rid of baseless suits. It would

help if we had judges who would do the right thing. But judges now see

themselves as media stars, i.e. Lance Ito, the weasel that tried the OJ case.

They're as much into the fame and glory thing as anybody.

Also, don't forget that the defense lawyers in malpractice cases also make

substantial fees, except that they get paid by the hour. By the 10th of an

hour, in fact, for every second they work and some they don't work. Those

people

bill at anywhere from $150/hr for young interns up to $1,200 an hour for the

big stars. Nobody ever seems to get annoyed at their incomes.

Back to attitudes for the moment. What do we expect people to do when the

giants of industry lie, cheat and steal to their hearts' content and nothing

happens to them? They want to get their place at the trough, that's what. Our

values as a society are in the toilet. We see nothing wrong with cheating. I

see that among EMT students who expect to cheat in our classes because

cheating is pervasive in the public schools. So if you have a chance to get

yours,

why not go for it?

When people see professional athletes who can barely sign their name getting

hundreds of millions of dollars just to wear a certain shoe, it seems to

follow that Joe Blow would like to figure out how to get in on the feast.

So a large part of the public is not enraged by the Mcs cases. Us old

fogeys are, but I've talked to lots of young people whose attitude was, hey,

why not? What's wrong with it? The old lady pulled a good one.

I hate that attitude, of course, but I know when I'm spitting into the wind.

The heifers are loose and already bred. We live in a society without regard

for ethics, morals, law, or anything other than their immediate desires. How

could we expect anything else from a group of people who spend most of their

lives with their eyes glued to the TV set watching absolute garbage. That's

where they get the values they have. Life's values as shown on MTV.

Yes, I hate what's going on in the legal profession, but I also hate it when

regular people get screwed by the health care system and have no recourse.

As for the lawyers in the Chrysler matter, they should be disbarred and

charged criminally with subornation of perjury. A lawyer is an officer of the

court, and there is no excuse for such conduct, and it ought to be strictly

enforced.

But it seems that in today's practice this sort of thing happens all the

time. We have witnessed the plight of the Tulia folks who were wrongly

prosecuted

and convicted by a corrupt prosecutor and a lying cop. I know a prominent DA

who has been ruled by the Court of Criminal Appeals several times for

knowingly withholding evidence favorable to the defense and knowingly putting on

false testimony.

Nothing ever happens to these scumbags just like nothing ever happens to the

bad doctors till they've left a trial of corpses. I hate that as well. The

legal profession has been completely derelict in dealing with scrotes like

these two. That doesn't excuse the medical profession for not stepping up to

the

plate and dealing with their bad eggs. We both have lots to answer for there.

I too hope that Prop 12 will help to correct some of the abuses, but I am not

nearly as confident as you are that it will. I'm afraid that it will, in

fact, wreak substantial injustices upon little people who have a legitimate

claim

and whose lives are in ashes from the actions of incompetent medical

professionals. Will it bring down malpractice insurance premiums? Maybe a

little,

but not substantially over the long run.

I say again: Only the insurance companies will come out ahead in this.

Gene

In a message dated 8/1/2003 6:19:59 PM Central Daylight Time,

hatfield@... writes:

>

> I have interjected a few of my own.......merely my opinion.....

>

> " TJ " Hatfield EMT-P

>

>

>

> >The lawyers do a pretty good job of getting rid of the outright crooks,

> >swindlers, drunks and incompetents. Check the Texas Bar Journal every

> month and

> >you'll see that we do disbar plenty of lawyers on a regular basis.

> However,

> >under our system of law where the courts are open to everyone it is quite

> >difficult to draw lines about what's a frivolous suit and what's not. We

> subscribe

> >in the USA to the tenet that everybody is entitled to his day in court.

> We're

> >walking in quicksand when we attempt to cut off a person's access to the

> >courts. And I think the workers comp solution is working well.

>

> Perhaps, but no better or worse than the doctors have done weeding out their

> own....

>

> >The rationale behind contingent fees is to allow poor folks to hire good

> >lawyers to get representation.

>

> I agree that the rationale is there, but it also aids in abuse from average

> citizens and intensifies when class action is brought up.

>

> The rationale for Proposition 12 is that it will in some ways aid in curbing

> abuse.

>

> Both have good intentions, but will they work?

>

> The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>

> >

> >Two cases that I know about from the Dallas area illustrate the kinds of

> >cases I'm talking about. Both these cases are egregious and cost people

> either

> >their life or brain.

> >

> >In one an ER physician gave Verapamil to an unmistakable ventricular tach.

> >Patient immediately went to asystole and suffered irreparable and

> devastating

> >brain damage. Second case, paramedic delivers a seizure patient to ER

> with a

> >perfectly good nasotracheal tube in place, 100% sats, and the ER doctor

> >insists on pulling it and reintubating orally. Trouble is she couldn't

> reintubate

> >and the patient died.

> >

> >I'm waiting to hear from the TSBME about anything being done to either of

> >those people, and I expect I'll wait till hell freezes over.

> >

>

> And what of the attorneys currently being sued by Chrysler for fraud after

> lying, and creating false testimony in an attempt to file a class action

> against Chrysler Corp??? What will happen to them? Even if Chrysler wins,

> will they be disciplined? It goes both ways....

>

> >We all hear about the excesses of a few, but are we willing to deprive

> people

> >with legitimate claims against those who have destroyed their lives of a

> >remedy? Do we really want to deprive the children of the parent whose

> life was

> >ruined by the doc who gave the verapamil of a place to live and a college

> >education because their father's ability to earn income came to a

> screeching halt

> >and instead of making $100,000 a year he has to spend that amount for

> care.

> >Can't there be a happy medium somewhere in all this?

>

> No, not at all, but we ned to do something to stop the lawsuit abuse, and

> the ridiculous non eco awards that are coming out. The hope of proposition

> 12, is that it will not keep those who deserve it from receiving rewards, it

> will keep those awards capped, and not allow another 8 million dollar cup of

> coffee.

>

> I am in solid support of proposition 12, especially in South Texas, which at

> this point in time is one of the most litigious areas of the country.

>

> Merely my honest opinion...

>

> Mike

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have interjected a few of my own.......merely my opinion.....

" TJ " Hatfield EMT-P

" Women and cats do as they please. Men and dogs might as well relax and get

used to it. "

Re: Propositon 12

> The lawyers do a pretty good job of getting rid of the outright crooks,

> swindlers, drunks and incompetents. Check the Texas Bar Journal every

month and

> you'll see that we do disbar plenty of lawyers on a regular basis.

However,

> under our system of law where the courts are open to everyone it is quite

> difficult to draw lines about what's a frivolous suit and what's not. We

subscribe

> in the USA to the tenet that everybody is entitled to his day in court.

We're

> walking in quicksand when we attempt to cut off a person's access to the

> courts. And I think the workers comp solution is working well.

Perhaps, but no better or worse than the doctors have done weeding out their

own....

> The rationale behind contingent fees is to allow poor folks to hire good

> lawyers to get representation.

I agree that the rationale is there, but it also aids in abuse from average

citizens and intensifies when class action is brought up.

The rationale for Proposition 12 is that it will in some ways aid in curbing

abuse.

Both have good intentions, but will they work?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

>

> Two cases that I know about from the Dallas area illustrate the kinds of

> cases I'm talking about. Both these cases are egregious and cost people

either

> their life or brain.

>

> In one an ER physician gave Verapamil to an unmistakable ventricular tach.

> Patient immediately went to asystole and suffered irreparable and

devastating

> brain damage. Second case, paramedic delivers a seizure patient to ER

with a

> perfectly good nasotracheal tube in place, 100% sats, and the ER doctor

> insists on pulling it and reintubating orally. Trouble is she couldn't

reintubate

> and the patient died.

>

> I'm waiting to hear from the TSBME about anything being done to either of

> those people, and I expect I'll wait till hell freezes over.

>

And what of the attorneys currently being sued by Chrysler for fraud after

lying, and creating false testimony in an attempt to file a class action

against Chrysler Corp??? What will happen to them? Even if Chrysler wins,

will they be disciplined? It goes both ways....

> We all hear about the excesses of a few, but are we willing to deprive

people

> with legitimate claims against those who have destroyed their lives of a

> remedy? Do we really want to deprive the children of the parent whose

life was

> ruined by the doc who gave the verapamil of a place to live and a college

> education because their father's ability to earn income came to a

screeching halt

> and instead of making $100,000 a year he has to spend that amount for

care.

> Can't there be a happy medium somewhere in all this?

No, not at all, but we ned to do something to stop the lawsuit abuse, and

the ridiculous non eco awards that are coming out. The hope of proposition

12, is that it will not keep those who deserve it from receiving rewards, it

will keep those awards capped, and not allow another 8 million dollar cup of

coffee.

I am in solid support of proposition 12, especially in South Texas, which at

this point in time is one of the most litigous areas of the country.

Merely my honest opinion...

Mike

[Guest guest]

You know, I hate to sound cynical, but I think there's more common ground

between Dr. Bledsoe and the lawyers than we'd all like to admit. The insurance

companies have proposed tort reform as a solution to the malpractice " crisis. "

The doctors, seeing little choice in the matter, have signed on, desparate to

solve their rising bills.

However, what is to guarantee that Proposition 12, House Bill 4, or any other

legislation is the panacea to cure the malpractice system? We've had several

rounds of tort reform since W was elected in 1994. The last time I

checked, I have yet to see a single decline in any sort of insurance premiums.

The doctors are suffering under high malpractice premiums. The attorneys are

suffering as well. With making cases harder to file, plaintiff's lawyers are

making less than they used to. With fewer cases being filed, the defense

attorneys are losing money as well. The doctors are still paying high

malpractice

premiums. The real losers are the public who have lost the right to sue when

they are harmed and still don't have a thing to show for it. Health care is

still

expensive, and no doubt, malpractice premiums are but a part of that cost.

Yes, I admit there are some very sleazy attorneys who make me ashamed of my

profession. Likewise, there are some doctors (and medics even) who I wouldn't

trust with a skinned knee.

I wish I knew the solution. But I'm willing to bet that a few of the list

members could sit down over some adult beverages and hash out a better solution

than the governor, legislature, and " tort reform " lobbyists came up with. Right

now, though, all it seems like we're getting with Prop 12 is a lessening of

our legal rights with no guarantees that the " malpractice crisis " will be

fixed.

To me, weakening the Texas Constitution's guarantee of open access to the

courts is too much to give up for a chance that maybe, the insurance companies

will put people's need for accessible health care ahead of profits. I hate to

say it, but tort reform is a misnomer. What it really should be called is

" LOSING YOUR RIGHT TO SUE. "

I apologize for my long-windedness. This issue is something that I tend to

feel a bit passionate on.

Wes Ogilvie, attorney

[Guest guest]

When the public losses the right to recourse they rebel like in 1776 watch

closely for the new world order to come to you the first loss will be the

right to seek recourse for wrongs to you. Next will be the loss of your

right to bear arms to protect your self .

watch and see

D.

EMTP

Silsbee EMS

806 Lee Rd.

Silsbee, Texas 77656 U S A

wetseal@... silsbeeems@...

Add this card to your address book

Re: Propositon 12

> You know, I hate to sound cynical, but I think there's more common ground

> between Dr. Bledsoe and the lawyers than we'd all like to admit. The

insurance

> companies have proposed tort reform as a solution to the malpractice

" crisis. "

> The doctors, seeing little choice in the matter, have signed on, desparate

to

> solve their rising bills.

>

> However, what is to guarantee that Proposition 12, House Bill 4, or any

other

> legislation is the panacea to cure the malpractice system? We've had

several

> rounds of tort reform since W was elected in 1994. The last time I

> checked, I have yet to see a single decline in any sort of insurance

premiums.

>

> The doctors are suffering under high malpractice premiums. The attorneys

are

> suffering as well. With making cases harder to file, plaintiff's lawyers

are

> making less than they used to. With fewer cases being filed, the defense

> attorneys are losing money as well. The doctors are still paying high

malpractice

> premiums. The real losers are the public who have lost the right to sue

when

> they are harmed and still don't have a thing to show for it. Health care

is still

> expensive, and no doubt, malpractice premiums are but a part of that cost.

>

> Yes, I admit there are some very sleazy attorneys who make me ashamed of

my

> profession. Likewise, there are some doctors (and medics even) who I

wouldn't

> trust with a skinned knee.

>

> I wish I knew the solution. But I'm willing to bet that a few of the list

> members could sit down over some adult beverages and hash out a better

solution

> than the governor, legislature, and " tort reform " lobbyists came up with.

Right

> now, though, all it seems like we're getting with Prop 12 is a lessening

of

> our legal rights with no guarantees that the " malpractice crisis " will be

> fixed.

>

> To me, weakening the Texas Constitution's guarantee of open access to the

> courts is too much to give up for a chance that maybe, the insurance

companies

> will put people's need for accessible health care ahead of profits. I hate

to

> say it, but tort reform is a misnomer. What it really should be called is

> " LOSING YOUR RIGHT TO SUE. "

>

> I apologize for my long-windedness. This issue is something that I tend to

> feel a bit passionate on.

>

> Wes Ogilvie, attorney

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

In the Miranda ruling, the Supremes affirmed that those arrested had a right

to an attorney and, if the accused could not afford them, then one would be

appointed for them by the state. These attorney's, called public defenders,

are paid by a governmental entity (although I am sure less than regular).

The " good lawyers " rarely take these cases unless they do so 'pro bono' and

usually because such cases are high profile (i.e., Geragos in the Lacey

saga). Physicians, especially emergency physicians, through EMTALA,

OBRA are supposed the see and stabilize every patient who presents to an ED

despite that fact that 4 out of 10 do not pay a dime. This is, in essence,

an unfunded mandate with significant penalties for not obeying. There is

probably more disparity in attorney incomes between those staring out and

those in practice for some time compared the physicians. Physicians may make

more and salaries may be a little higher (but, medical school is 4 years,

law school is 3 years, and the MD/DOs have to do residency training for 3-10

years depending on the specialty--during which time they are expected to

work 60+ hours a week or more and get paid about $30,000.00 per year.) I

know a few doctors who make close to a million bucks a year, but I probably

know a few more attorneys that do.

By the way, this is all academic discussion. Gene and Wes and I are good

friends. But, we have different points of view on a few things because we

each have invested years of our life in these professions. By the way, do

you know what is brown and black and looks good on a lawyer? A Doberman!

E. Bledsoe, DO, FACEP

Midlothian, Texas

[Guest guest]

RE: Propositon 12

>

> By the way, this is all academic discussion.

Those are the best discussions Doc, those are the ones where you can vent,

cuss and discuss and still walk away as friends and co workers.

On this list, it's a good thing to see that there are those who share

totally opposing views on certain items, yet put forth ohesiveness in other

important areas.

Diversity at it's finest....

Mike

[Guest guest]

On the subject of bad lawyers: I got my September Texas Bar Journal today

and, just like we do with the " back pages " of Texas EMS, I went immediately to

the disciplinary actions section.

This month 7 lawyers were disbarred for misconduct, 14 were suspended, and 9

public reprimands were issued. One lawyer resigned from the Bar to avoid

disbarment.

This is a fairly typical number of disciplinary actions for one month.

Gene Gandy

Gene Gandy, JD, LP

EMS Educator and Consultant

HillGandy Associates

POB 1651

Albany, TX 76430

cell:

wegandy@...

wegandy1938@...