Abortion horror in PA

Remove all ads!

Ragusa,

While I have not heard of the thirty times damages caused rule, it is true that once you reach a certain monetary threshold, if the case goes to court, it will be decided by a jury. It is also true that in cases where the it isn't a person (for example, a corporation, or in the case of malpractice, a hospital), that the jury tends to award large settlements. The problem with malpractice suits is that it is very difficult to assign what the damages should be and then multiply it by 30 or whatever to get to the total. For a car, there is a known cost to replace a defective part - how do you a price on pain and suffering?

The theshold amount varies by state, but it is typically not an incredibly large amount. I don't know what it is in Pennsylvania, but in my home state of Maryland, we just had a ballot resolution to vote on this past year, which set the threshold amount to $20,000. So assuming it's somewhere around that for most states, it is likely that any malpractice case would be heard by a jury.

You are also correct that many malpractice lawyers will take cases where their pay depends on the amount of the settlement. The going rate is 30%, so your estimate of 1/4 to 1/3 is spot on. And yes, most of these lawyers work for free in that if you don't win, they don't get paid.

That said, while I think in some cases there shouldn't be a pre-set limit on damages (for instance if there was permanent harm done and you require long-term treatment for the injuries suffered), there are cases where I think limits could and should be set. In the example I cited above, the woman made a full recovery, and no permanent harm requiring long-term treatment was required. While I don't know exactly what monetary amount should be awarded, $1.2 million seems excessive. Hell, I would let someone infect me with pneumonia and spend two weeks in the hospital if I knew I had $1.2 million waiting for me when I got out. In fact, I'd probably do it for considerably less than that.

The problem of course, is that there's no way you can categorize every conceivable situation that may come up. The best you could do is differentiate between permanent harm, significant harm, and one in which the patient makes a full recovery after a relatively brief amount of time.

And to finally bring this full circle back to the case at hand, by any measure this doctor's victims suffered permanent harm, as they died. Not just the babies, but in one case, one of the women. And while it may seem callous and cold to place a value on a life, that is exactly what is going to be done.

 

After seeing dmc's posts, I'll just add that I cannot point you to an exact statute that says there's no limit on the pain and suffering damages, and that the only reason make that statement is because my brother told me that. I just figured that since he's a doctor, and that such a law would be important to him, that he'd know.

One other little nugget:

Come on dmc. He could never take that case to court - he wouldn't have a leg to stand on!

 

Wait wait wait, seems like everyone is missing the point here. The guy's name is *Kermit*, did they prosecute his nurse Ms. Piggy as well? Maybe some of the blame should fall on Jim Henson, imagine being named Kermit. It would make me hate the world as well and what better way to show that hate than by murdering new born babies?

 

A name change would be a much more reasonable solution, joacqin!

On a more serious note, it is well known that I am very firmly pro life. However, I am not a total douchebag, either. There are those on the pro-life side who are, however. I guarantee those jerks will use this and obfuscate the issue, equating this guy with all abortions and possibly the morning after pill. Never underestimate the ability of a zealot to use lousy, dishonest logic.

 

I think the vast majority of people are pro life. (Some exeptions being terrorists. Or hired assassins. Or people who are suicidal.)

Not total, no. Although the implication that being in favour of life equates with being a douchebag seems a bit odd.

 

In that context, the vast majority of people are pro choice, as well. But that just confuses the terms.

 

So if you're pro-choice then you're a terrorist assassin? Smashing

 

Oh wow. I'm a terrorist! Or an hired assassin. A suicidal one at that.

 

Faye, we'll get t-shirts printed up!

 

Lately? JUST lately?

 

Yes, my sense of humour has definitely been off lately (nothing med-related, though) (and yes, Sil, hopefully just lately ). But in my defense, my previous post wasn't trying to be funny. Instead, it was an (apparently failed) ironic attempt to point out the ridiculous attempt to label pro-choicers as anti-lifers.

 

Ah, fair enough then

 

Yeah, the anti-life, anti-choice campaigns died pretty quickly around here. Probably because, whoever started it, the other side realized they can do the same thing and it'd be just as bad.

 

The pro-life side has attempted (and some still do) to present the alternative as pro-abortion. I don't think anyone who is pro-choice is actually in favor of most people getting an abortion.