Guest guest Posted January 6, 2003 Report Share Posted January 6, 2003 If anyone thinks these " trial lawyers " are fighting for the consumer, I have a bridge.................. They are just after the 40+% of those HUGE settlements. Jeff, I realize that you are a lawyer and their are a few good ones, despite what the jokes say. :-) Unfortunately, the whole insurance, corporate, medical, pharmaceutical and legal system is set up to milk the little guy and will probably remain that way. Tort reform would make complete sense if they attached jail time to the loser if they found them to be lying or ignoring or covering up some dangerous information. This may bring a little honesty into the system, which currently is a disgrace. Many thanks and much love, Ken Gullan Institute for Research Integration (IRI) San Diego, CA IRI is a 501C(3) non-profit corporation established to help children with developmental difficulties. To contact me off-list use kengullan@... or call 619-222-1104 > Date: Mon, 6 Jan 2003 14:02:52 -0600 > From: Jeff Sell <jzsell@...> > Subject: Houston Chronile Editorial--Whose side are you on, Mr. President? HELEN THOMAS > > Houston Chronicle > Copyright 2003 Houston Chronicle > > Friday, January 3, 2003 > > NEWS > > Opinion > > Whose side are you on, Mr. President? > HELEN THOMAS > > > THE Bush administration has it in for trial lawyers and is > planning a big push for " tort reform. " > The public should be wary of this new attempt to curtail consumer > protection. And I hope Congress will slam the brakes on this White > House maneuver to trample on the rights of citizens who seek > recourse from doctors for malpractice and from big corporations for > defective products. > The administration has co-opted the word " reform " to roll back > progress and promote its goals of weakening government restraints in > a variety of areas. > It's noteworthy that the administration has never pursued the > corporate chieftains whose greed stunned the nation last year with > the same energy that it goes after lawyers who are fighting for the > consumer. > " Reform " implies intent to make things better and to correct > defects and abuses. But buyers, beware. This so-called reform is > double speak - a euphemism to try to block private suits by trial > lawyers in behalf of consumers. > Egged on by many congressional Republicans, the administration > wants to put a $250,000 cap on malpractice awards for " pain and > suffering. " > It follows a speech President Bush made last July 24 when he > claimed that " the cause of the medical liability crisis is a badly > broken system of litigation that serves the interest of specialized > trial lawyers, not patients. " > Medical doctors are especially happy over the elevation of Sen. > Bill Frist, R-Tenn., a surgeon, to Senate Republican leader. Frist > has championed capping malpractice awards. After he was elected to > lead his fellow GOP senators, Frist was praised by Palmisano, > president-elect of the American Medical Association. > " It's encouraging to us that many issues (Frist) has championed > are our top priorities, " said Palmisano. He said the AMA's top issue > is the $250,000 liability cap. > Frist also is the author of a provision in the Homeland Security > bill providing liability relief to the makers of Thimerosal, a > mercury-based preservative that recently has been added to various > childhood vaccines. The provision is applicable even to pending > cases and is expected to result in the dismissal of numerous ongoing > cases alleging that Thimerosal has caused autism in children. > In Bush's eyes, the bogeymen, of course, are those trial lawyers. > Trial lawyers are used to being demonized and they are a favorite > political target of conservatives. > When G.W. Bush was governor of Texas, he led a crusade to make the > state's legal system less helpful to consumers. He pushed through > legislation that capped punitive damages, limited class actions to > federal courts and made it easier for judges to impose sanctions on > plaintiffs who filed so-called " frivolous " lawsuits. > Let's have more of that " frivolity. " That is actually a misnomer > because some of those lawsuits led to dramatic safety improvements, > forced on corporations through jury verdicts. Nothing gets their > attention like writing a big check to an injured customer. > The record is replete with tragic cases that produced verdicts > and precedents that have saved lives and prevented others from > suffering. > Consider some of these lessons in recent years: > When women using super-absorbent tampons were dying from toxic > shock syndrome, the manufacturer - Playtex - disregarded studies > that showed tampons were at fault. It took a $10 million verdict to > convince Playtex it would be smart to remove the tampons from the > market. > Eli Lilly was selling an arthritis pain-relief drug whose side > effects included a fatal kidney-liver ailment. It took a $6 million > jury verdict against the drug company to persuade it to stop selling > the medicine. > Another drug maker - & - knew that Tylenol turned > poisonous when mixed with alcohol but the company did not put > warnings on its bottles until a jury socked it with a $8.8 million > judgment. There are two ways of enforcing consumer protections. One > is through government intervention. That's the job of agencies like > the Environmental Protection Agency, the Food and Drug > Administration, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the > Securities and Exchange Commission, the Labor Department, the > National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the Federal Trade > Commission, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Federal > Aviation Administration and a host of others and their state and > local counterparts. > The second way to enforce consumer rights is the private lawsuit. > Bush's war on the trial lawyers can only please those from the > consumer-be-damned school of corporate wrongdoing. In President > Bush's " compassionate conservatism, " just whom does he feel > compassion for? > I fear I know the answer. > > ********************** > Peacefully, > Jeff Sell > Hitt * * Sell > 4309 Yoakum Boulevard > 2nd Floor > Houston, TX 77006 > 713.654.7776 > 713.654.7789 (fax) > 832.731-3145 (v-mail) > JZSell@... > www.HittSell.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 In a message dated 8/18/04 5:19:55 AM Mountain Daylight Time, SSRI medications writes: > Tort Reform has to be fought as vigilantly as the fight to ban these drugs, > otherwise we will get > fed some more poison later. > > The problem is that most people think Tort Reform is a good thing. A case in point is that the insurance companies have brainwashed the general public into believing that all those people who sue and get money are the reason their premiums went up. That's a lie. The REAL reason premiums increase is that multi-billion-dollar insurance companies will spend upwards of a million dollars or MORE to keep any plaintiff from getting even one dollar of damages. I've been through two trials against insurance companies -- I have the complete billing records for one trial and I know what the lawyers spent that defended the insurance company and it was somewhere around $700,000 -- in the end I got a settlement of $35,000 and every penny went to my lawyers for costs. It's the same thing with Big Pharma -- they have billions to defend themselves, and those legal costs are passed on to the consumer. Yet again, we've been lied to -- we have caps here in Colorado, too. It's turned out well for Big Pharma because I know a lot of prospective litigants who couldn't get a lawyer because the costs of suing Big Pharma can go as high as half a million JUST FOR ExPERT WITNESSES and very few lawyers can fork out that kind of dough, and almost NO plaintiff has that kind of resource, so cases go unfiled, all to the benefit of the pharmas. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Latest Press Release Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 In a message dated 8/18/04 5:19:55 AM Mountain Daylight Time, SSRI medications writes: > Tort Reform has to be fought as vigilantly as the fight to ban these drugs, > otherwise we will get > fed some more poison later. > > The problem is that most people think Tort Reform is a good thing. A case in point is that the insurance companies have brainwashed the general public into believing that all those people who sue and get money are the reason their premiums went up. That's a lie. The REAL reason premiums increase is that multi-billion-dollar insurance companies will spend upwards of a million dollars or MORE to keep any plaintiff from getting even one dollar of damages. I've been through two trials against insurance companies -- I have the complete billing records for one trial and I know what the lawyers spent that defended the insurance company and it was somewhere around $700,000 -- in the end I got a settlement of $35,000 and every penny went to my lawyers for costs. It's the same thing with Big Pharma -- they have billions to defend themselves, and those legal costs are passed on to the consumer. Yet again, we've been lied to -- we have caps here in Colorado, too. It's turned out well for Big Pharma because I know a lot of prospective litigants who couldn't get a lawyer because the costs of suing Big Pharma can go as high as half a million JUST FOR ExPERT WITNESSES and very few lawyers can fork out that kind of dough, and almost NO plaintiff has that kind of resource, so cases go unfiled, all to the benefit of the pharmas. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Latest Press Release Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 In a message dated 8/18/04 5:19:55 AM Mountain Daylight Time, SSRI medications writes: > Tort Reform has to be fought as vigilantly as the fight to ban these drugs, > otherwise we will get > fed some more poison later. > > The problem is that most people think Tort Reform is a good thing. A case in point is that the insurance companies have brainwashed the general public into believing that all those people who sue and get money are the reason their premiums went up. That's a lie. The REAL reason premiums increase is that multi-billion-dollar insurance companies will spend upwards of a million dollars or MORE to keep any plaintiff from getting even one dollar of damages. I've been through two trials against insurance companies -- I have the complete billing records for one trial and I know what the lawyers spent that defended the insurance company and it was somewhere around $700,000 -- in the end I got a settlement of $35,000 and every penny went to my lawyers for costs. It's the same thing with Big Pharma -- they have billions to defend themselves, and those legal costs are passed on to the consumer. Yet again, we've been lied to -- we have caps here in Colorado, too. It's turned out well for Big Pharma because I know a lot of prospective litigants who couldn't get a lawyer because the costs of suing Big Pharma can go as high as half a million JUST FOR ExPERT WITNESSES and very few lawyers can fork out that kind of dough, and almost NO plaintiff has that kind of resource, so cases go unfiled, all to the benefit of the pharmas. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Latest Press Release Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 18, 2004 Report Share Posted August 18, 2004 In a message dated 8/18/04 5:19:55 AM Mountain Daylight Time, SSRI medications writes: > Tort Reform has to be fought as vigilantly as the fight to ban these drugs, > otherwise we will get > fed some more poison later. > > The problem is that most people think Tort Reform is a good thing. A case in point is that the insurance companies have brainwashed the general public into believing that all those people who sue and get money are the reason their premiums went up. That's a lie. The REAL reason premiums increase is that multi-billion-dollar insurance companies will spend upwards of a million dollars or MORE to keep any plaintiff from getting even one dollar of damages. I've been through two trials against insurance companies -- I have the complete billing records for one trial and I know what the lawyers spent that defended the insurance company and it was somewhere around $700,000 -- in the end I got a settlement of $35,000 and every penny went to my lawyers for costs. It's the same thing with Big Pharma -- they have billions to defend themselves, and those legal costs are passed on to the consumer. Yet again, we've been lied to -- we have caps here in Colorado, too. It's turned out well for Big Pharma because I know a lot of prospective litigants who couldn't get a lawyer because the costs of suing Big Pharma can go as high as half a million JUST FOR ExPERT WITNESSES and very few lawyers can fork out that kind of dough, and almost NO plaintiff has that kind of resource, so cases go unfiled, all to the benefit of the pharmas. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Latest Press Release Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 In a message dated 8/18/04 9:56:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time, SSRI medications writes: > Tort is the common man's only legal recourse for injustice. > When legal means to justice are sealed from the average guy > I hate to think what will happen to our country. > What will happen is that Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Anything will be able to kill us, maim us, destroy our lives, with total and complete impunity. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Latest Press Release Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 In a message dated 8/18/04 9:56:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time, SSRI medications writes: > Tort is the common man's only legal recourse for injustice. > When legal means to justice are sealed from the average guy > I hate to think what will happen to our country. > What will happen is that Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Anything will be able to kill us, maim us, destroy our lives, with total and complete impunity. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Latest Press Release Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 19, 2004 Report Share Posted August 19, 2004 But they do that now. Re: Tort Reform > In a message dated 8/18/04 9:56:15 PM Mountain Daylight Time, > SSRI medications writes: > > > > Tort is the common man's only legal recourse for injustice. > > When legal means to justice are sealed from the average guy > > I hate to think what will happen to our country. > > > > What will happen is that Big Pharma, Big Insurance, Big Anything will be able > to kill us, maim us, destroy our lives, with total and complete impunity. > > " Blind Reason " > a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue > Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's > Unsafe At Any Dose > Latest Press Release > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 In a message dated 11/24/04 9:54:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Bush may be wrong on many things but he is > right on that one and he is right on tort reform. Tort reform doesn't come > because of trial lawyers who actually have a much more powerful lobby than > the drug companies or the AMA. They have been getting filthy rich off of > malpractice. Yes, , when you're a victim of some crap doctor who should've had his license pulled and he maims or even kills you, or if you are a victim of a drug that totally utterly ruins your life, or if you have a brain injured child who got that way from a bogus vaccine and now requires MILLIONS of dollars to sustain his life, would YOU be happy with a $250,000 cap on physical injuries???? Someone tried to tell me that that little ambulance chaser was responsible for there being no vaccines available in this country -- because he had sued some vaccine maker and won a settlement of $5,000,000. That's chump change to any pharma. It's not the the trial lawyers who sue on behalf of a plaintiff that's the problem. I personally know of two insurance companies that spent nearly A MILLION DOLLARS to defend cases where the plaintiffs should've gotten money for the injuries they suffered yet the defense lawyers spent 7 figures to keep those people from getting even $25,000. It's all propaganda, . Tort reform will allow these people to maim you, kill you, disfigure you, and disable you. And personally, I'm very happy that we have good lawyers going after GSK!!!!!! Tort reform is not to protect the consumer from greedy lawyers. It's to allow big industry to run amok with impunity!!! " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 In a message dated 11/24/04 9:54:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Bush may be wrong on many things but he is > right on that one and he is right on tort reform. Tort reform doesn't come > because of trial lawyers who actually have a much more powerful lobby than > the drug companies or the AMA. They have been getting filthy rich off of > malpractice. Yes, , when you're a victim of some crap doctor who should've had his license pulled and he maims or even kills you, or if you are a victim of a drug that totally utterly ruins your life, or if you have a brain injured child who got that way from a bogus vaccine and now requires MILLIONS of dollars to sustain his life, would YOU be happy with a $250,000 cap on physical injuries???? Someone tried to tell me that that little ambulance chaser was responsible for there being no vaccines available in this country -- because he had sued some vaccine maker and won a settlement of $5,000,000. That's chump change to any pharma. It's not the the trial lawyers who sue on behalf of a plaintiff that's the problem. I personally know of two insurance companies that spent nearly A MILLION DOLLARS to defend cases where the plaintiffs should've gotten money for the injuries they suffered yet the defense lawyers spent 7 figures to keep those people from getting even $25,000. It's all propaganda, . Tort reform will allow these people to maim you, kill you, disfigure you, and disable you. And personally, I'm very happy that we have good lawyers going after GSK!!!!!! Tort reform is not to protect the consumer from greedy lawyers. It's to allow big industry to run amok with impunity!!! " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 Tort Reform will keep ordinary citizens out of court. Unless you have tried to take on a major corporation, you have no idea what it takes. It is an unbelievable task that takes many twists and turns. They will make it very very expensive for you. That is a major part of the game to outlast you. Tort Reform limits will make it impossible for lawyers to take a case on a contingency. The fees easily will exceed the possible award. That means anyone who wants to sue will have to be paying all billable hours and all expenses. Experts, travel, filing fees, etc etc etc. Unless you have at least $200,000. Cash, forget it. Where lawyers do make out well are in class actions where they sign up hundreds of clients. The clients individually will not get that big of a settlement, but then they will also not have to bear the brunt of the rollercoaster ride litigation is, plus the expenses. It is a trade off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 25, 2004 Report Share Posted November 25, 2004 < It is a trade off. I don't call the current system a trade off. Rip off is the more appropriate term. Why should it cost millions of dollars to get legal represenatation which is what it really boils down just to get legal remedy for say, a gross malpractice mistake that killed a relative? Why does a lawyer have to walk with 50-75% of an award for damages done to his client? Such fees are extortionate. I do not agree with caps but the reason we are getting them is lawyers. Again, caps on judgement awards are not tort reform. Tort reform is rewriting of statues. What it takes to go after a major corporation is certainly one of my points and most ordinary citizens are locked out of the process NOW which is another of my points. Do you honestly believe that such complicated processes are necessary? No they are not. And another of my points is that NOW, you need big dollars to pay the attorney or you need to meet certain criteria that provides good guarantee the lawyer can win himself some big money or you do not get representation. It doesn't matter the wrong done to you, it doesn't matter if a wrong was even done - it is the potential income to the attorney that makes the determination. PERIOD. It is a system set up to serve the lawyers so they can become multi millionaires. On the other hand, if you are a mother rapist and kill a few women in your endeavors, you are guaranteed legal representation and due process of law. Of course, the state will pay the lawyer's fees. He is always covered. Coby is an example. The criminal charges are dropped because the allegations cannot be proven. Civil damages however are being pursued because it takes little to prove them. Why the difference? Because the lawyers got the laws written as such. But then most of the guys writing the laws are lawyers!! That's what all the debate is about over this issue. Right or wrong of the accusations doesn't mean anything anymore - its all about income to lawyers who do their own public relations work to delude people into believing they do it for us. BS. And this idea that liability from lawsuits is going to help ensure safety of products is moot. Look at what has been going on with the laws like they are. Class action suits? Just make the lawyers even richer while their clients get even less. Do you think it really takes that much more time for his secretary to type more names on the brief and mail out more standard form status letters? Ripped off is the only appropriate word. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 9:40:43 AM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Caps and tort > reform are two different things!! Since you apparently are not aware, caps > are simply limits on the awards whereas tort reform is a rewrite of the > statues. , the Chimp is trying to outlaw the ability to even sue for damages in his tort reform. You have the facts of my prior run-ins with the judicial system all wrong. I DID have lawyers. I DID go to trial. And I sat there dumbfounded as the insurance company's lawyers made a sham of the legal system and spent over a million dollars trying to discredit ME, when I was the injured party. They spent $25,000 having an investigator sitting outside my house at 2 a.m. to see when we got up in the morning. The entire scenario was something right out of a Grisham novel, and those tactics should be outlawed. The insurance company spent another $25,000 to haul in some other lawyer to testify that I caused my own injuries. In my husband's case, they spent $35,000 to hire a psychiatrist to state on the stand that I had made up the entire brain injury story even though I wasn't at the accident site, and I didn't put my husband in the Flight for Life Helicopter to a trauma center because he was unconscious. Yep, a million bucks they spent. THOSE are the greedy lawyers. You obvsiously have no experience with litigation. It costs over $100,000 in fees JUST to get to court, IF you're a plaintiff. And if Georgie had his way there would be no lawsuits against Big Pharma. Just ponder what that means in light of the Vioxx scandal and the scandals to come. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 26, 2004 Report Share Posted November 26, 2004 In a message dated 11/26/04 9:40:43 AM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Caps and tort > reform are two different things!! Since you apparently are not aware, caps > are simply limits on the awards whereas tort reform is a rewrite of the > statues. , the Chimp is trying to outlaw the ability to even sue for damages in his tort reform. You have the facts of my prior run-ins with the judicial system all wrong. I DID have lawyers. I DID go to trial. And I sat there dumbfounded as the insurance company's lawyers made a sham of the legal system and spent over a million dollars trying to discredit ME, when I was the injured party. They spent $25,000 having an investigator sitting outside my house at 2 a.m. to see when we got up in the morning. The entire scenario was something right out of a Grisham novel, and those tactics should be outlawed. The insurance company spent another $25,000 to haul in some other lawyer to testify that I caused my own injuries. In my husband's case, they spent $35,000 to hire a psychiatrist to state on the stand that I had made up the entire brain injury story even though I wasn't at the accident site, and I didn't put my husband in the Flight for Life Helicopter to a trauma center because he was unconscious. Yep, a million bucks they spent. THOSE are the greedy lawyers. You obvsiously have no experience with litigation. It costs over $100,000 in fees JUST to get to court, IF you're a plaintiff. And if Georgie had his way there would be no lawsuits against Big Pharma. Just ponder what that means in light of the Vioxx scandal and the scandals to come. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Tort reform means less damages for victims to me. There are many ways to reform bogus lawsuites and I don't think there is anyone that wants bogus lawsuites to happen. Take away the ability to actually hurt a criminal industry with punitive monetary damages, which by the way is the only recourse left to a law abiding citizen. Reducing the tort (the money paid out for damages) is a trick that will leave you with nothing but being screwed when your duaghter dies from a " safe " drug. These drug companies set aside money for lawsuites, it's in the game plan. Reform is the wrong word for capping claims. True reform would set up the system to flush bogus cases and several people who know the lawsuite scene tell me that there are already checks and balances to prevent BS lawsuites. All Tort Reform really means is putting a cap on the damages that can be awarded. That stuff just doesn't fly when your damaged for the rest of your life by liars who knew that their products would damage a percentage of people and decided the profits were worth more than a few hundred thousand people's lives. Tell that to Traci 's family, she's dead. Or Glenn McIntosh's family, they lost their daughter to Paxil. Actually the reform should be treble damages, where you find them so completely guilty (which has now been done) that they have to pay 3 times the damages. That sounds like Tort reform to me. Jim In a message dated 11/24/04 9:54:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Bush may be wrong on many things but he is > right on that one and he is right on tort reform. Tort reform doesn't come > because of trial lawyers who actually have a much more powerful lobby than > the drug companies or the AMA. They have been getting filthy rich off of > malpractice. Yes, , when you're a victim of some crap doctor who should've had his license pulled and he maims or even kills you, or if you are a victim of a drug that totally utterly ruins your life, or if you have a brain injured child who got that way from a bogus vaccine and now requires MILLIONS of dollars to sustain his life, would YOU be happy with a $250,000 cap on physical injuries???? Someone tried to tell me that that little ambulance chaser was responsible for there being no vaccines available in this country -- because he had sued some vaccine maker and won a settlement of $5,000,000. That's chump change to any pharma. It's not the the trial lawyers who sue on behalf of a plaintiff that's the problem. I personally know of two insurance companies that spent nearly A MILLION DOLLARS to defend cases where the plaintiffs should've gotten money for the injuries they suffered yet the defense lawyers spent 7 figures to keep those people from getting even $25,000. It's all propaganda, . Tort reform will allow these people to maim you, kill you, disfigure you, and disable you. And personally, I'm very happy that we have good lawyers going after GSK!!!!!! Tort reform is not to protect the consumer from greedy lawyers. It's to allow big industry to run amok with impunity!!! " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2004 Report Share Posted November 29, 2004 Tort reform means less damages for victims to me. There are many ways to reform bogus lawsuites and I don't think there is anyone that wants bogus lawsuites to happen. Take away the ability to actually hurt a criminal industry with punitive monetary damages, which by the way is the only recourse left to a law abiding citizen. Reducing the tort (the money paid out for damages) is a trick that will leave you with nothing but being screwed when your duaghter dies from a " safe " drug. These drug companies set aside money for lawsuites, it's in the game plan. Reform is the wrong word for capping claims. True reform would set up the system to flush bogus cases and several people who know the lawsuite scene tell me that there are already checks and balances to prevent BS lawsuites. All Tort Reform really means is putting a cap on the damages that can be awarded. That stuff just doesn't fly when your damaged for the rest of your life by liars who knew that their products would damage a percentage of people and decided the profits were worth more than a few hundred thousand people's lives. Tell that to Traci 's family, she's dead. Or Glenn McIntosh's family, they lost their daughter to Paxil. Actually the reform should be treble damages, where you find them so completely guilty (which has now been done) that they have to pay 3 times the damages. That sounds like Tort reform to me. Jim In a message dated 11/24/04 9:54:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Bush may be wrong on many things but he is > right on that one and he is right on tort reform. Tort reform doesn't come > because of trial lawyers who actually have a much more powerful lobby than > the drug companies or the AMA. They have been getting filthy rich off of > malpractice. Yes, , when you're a victim of some crap doctor who should've had his license pulled and he maims or even kills you, or if you are a victim of a drug that totally utterly ruins your life, or if you have a brain injured child who got that way from a bogus vaccine and now requires MILLIONS of dollars to sustain his life, would YOU be happy with a $250,000 cap on physical injuries???? Someone tried to tell me that that little ambulance chaser was responsible for there being no vaccines available in this country -- because he had sued some vaccine maker and won a settlement of $5,000,000. That's chump change to any pharma. It's not the the trial lawyers who sue on behalf of a plaintiff that's the problem. I personally know of two insurance companies that spent nearly A MILLION DOLLARS to defend cases where the plaintiffs should've gotten money for the injuries they suffered yet the defense lawyers spent 7 figures to keep those people from getting even $25,000. It's all propaganda, . Tort reform will allow these people to maim you, kill you, disfigure you, and disable you. And personally, I'm very happy that we have good lawyers going after GSK!!!!!! Tort reform is not to protect the consumer from greedy lawyers. It's to allow big industry to run amok with impunity!!! " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 There was a fairly long article in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal that talked about settlements involving drug company litigation. One thing pointed out, that I had never realized, is that a settlement is quite often much smaller than the amount awarded by the jury. The headlines are " $$55Million awarded plaintiff in XYZ suit " but the actual payout may be $7 million. I thought that was interesting, but have not thought about it enough to decide what that means for people on either side of the " tort reform " issue. gertie Re: Tort reform Tort reform means less damages for victims to me. There are many ways to reform bogus lawsuites and I don't think there is anyone that wants bogus lawsuites to happen. Take away the ability to actually hurt a criminal industry with punitive monetary damages, which by the way is the only recourse left to a law abiding citizen. Reducing the tort (the money paid out for damages) is a trick that will leave you with nothing but being screwed when your duaghter dies from a " safe " drug. These drug companies set aside money for lawsuites, it's in the game plan. Reform is the wrong word for capping claims. True reform would set up the system to flush bogus cases and several people who know the lawsuite scene tell me that there are already checks and balances to prevent BS lawsuites. All Tort Reform really means is putting a cap on the damages that can be awarded. That stuff just doesn't fly when your damaged for the rest of your life by liars who knew that their products would damage a percentage of people and decided the profits were worth more than a few hundred thousand people's lives. Tell that to Traci 's family, she's dead. Or Glenn McIntosh's family, they lost their daughter to Paxil. Actually the reform should be treble damages, where you find them so completely guilty (which has now been done) that they have to pay 3 times the damages. That sounds like Tort reform to me. Jim In a message dated 11/24/04 9:54:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Bush may be wrong on many things but he is > right on that one and he is right on tort reform. Tort reform doesn't come > because of trial lawyers who actually have a much more powerful lobby than > the drug companies or the AMA. They have been getting filthy rich off of > malpractice. Yes, , when you're a victim of some crap doctor who should've had his license pulled and he maims or even kills you, or if you are a victim of a drug that totally utterly ruins your life, or if you have a brain injured child who got that way from a bogus vaccine and now requires MILLIONS of dollars to sustain his life, would YOU be happy with a $250,000 cap on physical injuries???? Someone tried to tell me that that little ambulance chaser was responsible for there being no vaccines available in this country -- because he had sued some vaccine maker and won a settlement of $5,000,000. That's chump change to any pharma. It's not the the trial lawyers who sue on behalf of a plaintiff that's the problem. I personally know of two insurance companies that spent nearly A MILLION DOLLARS to defend cases where the plaintiffs should've gotten money for the injuries they suffered yet the defense lawyers spent 7 figures to keep those people from getting even $25,000. It's all propaganda, . Tort reform will allow these people to maim you, kill you, disfigure you, and disable you. And personally, I'm very happy that we have good lawyers going after GSK!!!!!! Tort reform is not to protect the consumer from greedy lawyers. It's to allow big industry to run amok with impunity!!! " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2004 Report Share Posted November 30, 2004 There was a fairly long article in a recent issue of the Wall Street Journal that talked about settlements involving drug company litigation. One thing pointed out, that I had never realized, is that a settlement is quite often much smaller than the amount awarded by the jury. The headlines are " $$55Million awarded plaintiff in XYZ suit " but the actual payout may be $7 million. I thought that was interesting, but have not thought about it enough to decide what that means for people on either side of the " tort reform " issue. gertie Re: Tort reform Tort reform means less damages for victims to me. There are many ways to reform bogus lawsuites and I don't think there is anyone that wants bogus lawsuites to happen. Take away the ability to actually hurt a criminal industry with punitive monetary damages, which by the way is the only recourse left to a law abiding citizen. Reducing the tort (the money paid out for damages) is a trick that will leave you with nothing but being screwed when your duaghter dies from a " safe " drug. These drug companies set aside money for lawsuites, it's in the game plan. Reform is the wrong word for capping claims. True reform would set up the system to flush bogus cases and several people who know the lawsuite scene tell me that there are already checks and balances to prevent BS lawsuites. All Tort Reform really means is putting a cap on the damages that can be awarded. That stuff just doesn't fly when your damaged for the rest of your life by liars who knew that their products would damage a percentage of people and decided the profits were worth more than a few hundred thousand people's lives. Tell that to Traci 's family, she's dead. Or Glenn McIntosh's family, they lost their daughter to Paxil. Actually the reform should be treble damages, where you find them so completely guilty (which has now been done) that they have to pay 3 times the damages. That sounds like Tort reform to me. Jim In a message dated 11/24/04 9:54:18 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > Bush may be wrong on many things but he is > right on that one and he is right on tort reform. Tort reform doesn't come > because of trial lawyers who actually have a much more powerful lobby than > the drug companies or the AMA. They have been getting filthy rich off of > malpractice. Yes, , when you're a victim of some crap doctor who should've had his license pulled and he maims or even kills you, or if you are a victim of a drug that totally utterly ruins your life, or if you have a brain injured child who got that way from a bogus vaccine and now requires MILLIONS of dollars to sustain his life, would YOU be happy with a $250,000 cap on physical injuries???? Someone tried to tell me that that little ambulance chaser was responsible for there being no vaccines available in this country -- because he had sued some vaccine maker and won a settlement of $5,000,000. That's chump change to any pharma. It's not the the trial lawyers who sue on behalf of a plaintiff that's the problem. I personally know of two insurance companies that spent nearly A MILLION DOLLARS to defend cases where the plaintiffs should've gotten money for the injuries they suffered yet the defense lawyers spent 7 figures to keep those people from getting even $25,000. It's all propaganda, . Tort reform will allow these people to maim you, kill you, disfigure you, and disable you. And personally, I'm very happy that we have good lawyers going after GSK!!!!!! Tort reform is not to protect the consumer from greedy lawyers. It's to allow big industry to run amok with impunity!!! " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 In a message dated 12/1/04 8:25:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > One thing pointed out, that I had never realized, is that a settlement is > quite often much smaller than the amount awarded by the jury. The headlines > are " $$55Million awarded plaintiff in XYZ suit " but the actual payout may be > $7 million. That's because in order to keep the defense from appealing the verdict, the plaintiffs will often settlement for a much lesser amount. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 In a message dated 12/1/04 8:25:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > One thing pointed out, that I had never realized, is that a settlement is > quite often much smaller than the amount awarded by the jury. The headlines > are " $$55Million awarded plaintiff in XYZ suit " but the actual payout may be > $7 million. That's because in order to keep the defense from appealing the verdict, the plaintiffs will often settlement for a much lesser amount. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 In a message dated 12/1/04 8:25:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > One thing pointed out, that I had never realized, is that a settlement is > quite often much smaller than the amount awarded by the jury. The headlines > are " $$55Million awarded plaintiff in XYZ suit " but the actual payout may be > $7 million. That's because in order to keep the defense from appealing the verdict, the plaintiffs will often settlement for a much lesser amount. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 In a message dated 12/1/04 8:25:33 PM Mountain Standard Time, SSRI medications writes: > One thing pointed out, that I had never realized, is that a settlement is > quite often much smaller than the amount awarded by the jury. The headlines > are " $$55Million awarded plaintiff in XYZ suit " but the actual payout may be > $7 million. That's because in order to keep the defense from appealing the verdict, the plaintiffs will often settlement for a much lesser amount. " Blind Reason " a novel of pharmaceutical intrigue Think your antidepressant is safe? Think again. It's Unsafe At Any Dose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Another part of this is that at least in our state, the state gets half of the punitive award. Punitive awards are also taxed. They are taxed under the alternative minimum tax, which does not allow you to deduct your attorney's fees. So you also have to pay taxes on the attorney's fees. So there is significant advantage to both parties to settle for a lesser amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Another part of this is that at least in our state, the state gets half of the punitive award. Punitive awards are also taxed. They are taxed under the alternative minimum tax, which does not allow you to deduct your attorney's fees. So you also have to pay taxes on the attorney's fees. So there is significant advantage to both parties to settle for a lesser amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2004 Report Share Posted December 1, 2004 Another part of this is that at least in our state, the state gets half of the punitive award. Punitive awards are also taxed. They are taxed under the alternative minimum tax, which does not allow you to deduct your attorney's fees. So you also have to pay taxes on the attorney's fees. So there is significant advantage to both parties to settle for a lesser amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.