Tired Screed: Romney Wants to Thwart Injured Patients

Ah yes, it's campaign season again. And we have another politician calling for, "federal caps on non-economic and punitive damages related to malpractice" because, "lottery-sized awards and frivolous lawsuits may enrich the trial lawyers but they put a heavy burden on doctors, hospitals and, of course through defensive medicine, they put a burden on the entire health care system."

This time it's Mitt Romney. Cite to the article for further detail: http://www.salon.com/wires/ap/2007/11/20/D8T1MFNO2_romney_health_care/index.html

I don't know where to start. First, with the irony. I thought Gov. Romney was a conservative, but here he wants regulation and a one-size-fits-all federal standard for all patients injured by physician neglect.

The bigger problem is that Gov. Romney either knows nothing about profound injury or--worse--he knows it well, but wants to treat patients' rights as a political issue. There are bigger policy problems. To begin with, punitive damages in medical cases are so rare as to be almost non-existent. They are awarded in the rare case when a surgeon--who is drunk--commits a surgical error or when a doctor who is a pervert sexually abuses a patient. Most doctors and nurses are honorable and good people, and that is why the punitive damage problem is rare.

And then there's the lottery argument. For a buck or two, you can play the lottery in most states. You're likely to lose but if you win, you'll be a multi-millionaire. To "play the lottery" in a medical malpractice case, you need a profound injury--often it's as serious as death, or a life in a wheelchair. No matter what happens you will be that way for life because of a mistake made by an inattentive doctor. That's a tragedy, not a lottery. Anyone who confuses the two does not understand the devastation caused by profound injuries.

And then there's frivolous lawsuits. This is a phrase that really means, "We don't trust juries." For according to Gov Romney and others, juries can't tell when a lawsuit has merit, and they will literally shower the fraudulent party with a torrent of cash. I've been trying cases for over 20 years. Maybe I'm just not a very good lawyer, but it's pretty clear that juries have plenty of sense when it comes to ferreting out good claims and bad ones. Or maybe Gov. Romney and those who rant about the "crisis" have a different agenda.

In the end, it's easy to trust the jury. Our ancestors set up the jury trial system to protect us against politicians and titans. Let's not mess with it, as they knew what they were doing.

David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC

Wal-Mart Raids Profoundly Injured Employee's Settlement Funds

Some things are beyond comprehension. Comes today's news, in the Wall Street Journal no less, that Wal-Mart sued a catastrophically-injured former employee for reimbursement of medical expenses. Here is a link to article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119551952474798582.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one

Reported on the front page, November 20, 2007, is the horrifying story of a woman who worked for Wal-Mart and received her health insurance through her employer. A big rig, with insufficient insurance, collided with her mini-van, and Deborah Shank was left brain damaged and confined to a wheel chair.

With the help of a lawyer, Mrs. Shank and her family settled her claim. The settlement wasn't enough to take of her future medical needs, but it would have made a big difference in her future. And then Wal-Mart sued to be reimbursed for the money it had paid for her prior care.

Wal-Mart claimed an entitlement to every dollar that it paid even though it didn't hire or pay for the lawyer that got the settlement for the Shank family. Wal-Mart claimed an entitlement to repayment even though the trucking company's insufficient insurance did not cover all of Mrs. Shank's harms and losses.

There is something very wrong with a system that allows an employer with Wal-Mart's resources to step in and claim every penny while the injured person is left penniless and without care. The story relates that the Shanks divorced so that she could receive greater public assistance as a single woman.

So the law that allows Wal-Mart full reimbursement means that taxpayers foot the bill for Mrs. Shank's care. Mrs. Shank did everything right. She worked, had insurance and didn't cause the devastating crash. The trucking company skates, Wal-Mart gets more money, Mrs. Shanks suffers without care, and we get the bill.

Go figure.

David F. Sugerman
www.pspc.com
Paul & Sugerman, PC