FL voters-Amendments

[Dagny 0]

I want to bring to the attention of Florida voters a proposed constitutional amendment - Amendment 3. I want to get the word out on what it is and how it will affect Florida citizens and Florida physicians. The choice is yours, but make it an informed decision.

AMENDMENT 3:
Section 1. Article I, Section 26 is created to read "Claimant's right to fair compensation." In any medical liability claim involving a contingency fee, the claimant is entitled to receive no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs, whether received by judgment, settlement, or otherwise, and regardless of the number of defendants. The claimant is entitled to 90% of all damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This provision is self-executing and does not require implementing legislation.

In other words, amendment 3 will cap attorney fees in malpractice suits. The Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers wants you to vote NO. Here's what they claim:

BAD FOR PATIENTS

Makes it nearly impossible for victims of medical errors to find a lawyer – even when a patient is killed or paralyzed.

Will result in a devastating increase in medical injuries, which already claims up to 5400 lives in Florida each year.

WILL COST YOU HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR

Medical errors cost every family in Florida over $500 dollars a year more in health care related costs, while those responsible for these errors get off scot-free.

Amendment 3 will make this even worse -- That means higher insurance rates and higher health care costs for all Floridians.

A GIFT TO INSURANCE COMPANIES & HMOS THAT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHTS

Changes the Medical Liability System so that your right to hold the healthcare system accountable for a life-threatening medical error is virtually wiped out.

Makes the Medical Liability System even worse by giving insurance companies even more of an unfair advantage over average citizens in Florida’s legal system.

I believe it is in the best interest of both Florida physicians and citizens to vote YES to this amendment in order to help reduce the number of frivolous lawsuits as well as allow to put money into the pockets of the people it belongs to most.

I mention these things because the television advertising being produced by the Florida Trial Lawyers is manipulative and misleading. Please view the following websites:

Amendment 3

Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers

Misleading Advertising


Their call to arms: On November 2nd Amendment 3 -- The CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT TO CAP ATTORNEY'S FEES will be on the ballot. We must ensure that voters understand the ramifications of this deceptive and dangerous initiative. The time to act is now!

Don't be deceived!

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali

[bodypilot90 0]

Hate to disagree with you but it is already very hard to get a lawyer to take a malpractice case ( a good one anyway). My wife was suppose to have had a ovary removed about 18 years ago. Last year she had a hysterectomy and the same ovary that was removed was still there. Not only was it there but the size of a grapefruit. The doctor said both of the ovaries were still there, ruling out the wrong one was removed. We could not get a single law firm to take the case. We had bills from both the hospital and the doctor for thr first removal.

I urge you to stop bad doctors and vote against amendment 3

[akarunway 1]

Hate to disagree with you but it is already very hard to get a lawyer to take a malpractice case ( a good one anyway). My wife was suppose to have had a ovary removed about 18 years ago. Last year she had a hysterectomy and the same ovary that was removed was still there. Not only was it there but the size of a grapefruit. The doctor said both of the ovaries were still there, ruling out the wrong one was removed. We could not get a single law firm to take the case. We had bills from both the hospital and the doctor for thr first removal.

I urge you to stop bad doctors and vote against amendment 3 ...................................................... I something happen many years ago that that was misdiagnosed in Fla. When my current doctor told me what had happened I called some attorneys and was told statue of limitations had expired unless I could prove it was PURPOSEFULLY done. Fuckin lawyers and doctors. > not all but MOST < Iv'e been in mucho pain for 35 years

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

it is already very hard to get a lawyer to take a malpractice case ( a good one anyway).

I damn near ruined my minitor this morning by soitting my coffee all over it when I read this nonsense. Lawyers and malpractice lawsuits are like wolves and a bloody deer carcass.

This has bevome sue-happy country where every moron wants to get-rich-quick any way they can...ethical methods or not. Doctors have a big fucking bullseye on their back because why? Because they have money. These jack-asses are getting rich off of suing innocent doctors. Voting "no" for this is voting against decency and for higher health care costs.

Nah. I'm voting yes.

Forty-two

[Dagny 0]

Quote

Hate to disagree with you but it is already very hard to get a lawyer to take a malpractice case ( a good one anyway).

It's hard because there isn't enough in it for the lawyers. If they don't see enough possible profit for themselves (barring pro bono lawyers and such), then they won't take the case. You shouldn't have to give up a higher percentage of the money you are awarded to get lawyers to do their job.

Quote

I urge you to stop bad doctors and vote against amendment 3

Other than allowing malpractice insurance premiums to stay at their already too inflated cost and allowing frivolous lawsuits to happen more frequently, this won't have an impact on any doctor...not even the bad ones. The doctors who make negligent or malicious errors are going to be sued one way or another. The question is, how much money do you want your lawyer to have? Because right now, they're taking almost up to half.

Did you know that all doctors in Florida don't actually have to carry malpractice insurance? Some don't. They have to have $250k set aside should they be sued and place a sign in their office declaring that they don't carry malpractice. Lawyers don't tend to pick up malpractice cases on these doctors because their isn't enough possible profit in it for them. It's sad, really. Why should you have to wave a fat check in front of a lawyer to get their attention and the assistance you need? You shouldn't have to. And voting yes to this amendment isn't going to stop greediness.

The only way things can possibly get better is when the doctors who harm people are being sued, while not suing the rest because of bad or undesirable outcomes. And another way to make things better is to have lawyers take malpractice cases because there was a negligent or malicious act that occurred and not because it'll bring them one step closer to driving a maserati.

Take me, I am the drug; take me, I am hallucinogenic.
-Salvador Dali

[Jib 0]

Some of the big med mal lawyers aren't even lobbying against it. Their plan is to charge $1000+ per hour and at the end and if they win, collect it from the proceeds.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[lawrocket 3]

I was a medical malpractice lawyer (defense side). I have been taking consults from the plaintiff's side, and haven't found a case that's worth my time, effort and energy.

If I'd heard you come in and want to sue for alleged malpractice that happened 18 years ago, I'd say, "take a hike." Had it happened one year ago, maybe. Two years ago, assuming you'd just discovered it in the last year, then I'd have to get do some investigation.

This amendment in Florida is similar to what we have in Cali, the Medical Injury Compesation Reform Act, which limits attorneys fees in med mal cases and limits "pain and suffering" to $250,000. Taking a med-mal case to trial might cost $100,000.00. Then add in attorney fees. You're looking at $250k right there.

These limits on lawsuits can be prohibitive in a way, since smaller "malpractice" can be eliminated. Example? You have a heart stoppage during surgery. You don't know about it until the doctor tells you afterwards. Assuming the doctor screwed up, what are your damages? Pain and suffering? None, for you were asleep. Long term medical? Assuming no infarct, it's like it never happened. Minimal damages mean practically no claim.

On the other hand, MICRA does not limit cases where, for example, a doctor intubates down the esophagus, causing permanent vegetation. Potentially, that's millions of dollars in health care. These special damages are not limited. I dunno about you, but I'd take 10 percent of an 8 million dollar verdict.

The next question is whether these limits are a fair amount. In Cali, the 250k is in 1977 dollars. I think good arguments can be made that it should increase with inflation.

This Florida law only seeks to make the plaintiff's bar richer. I'll go point y point:

BAD FOR PATIENTS

Makes it nearly impossible for victims of medical errors to find a lawyer – even when a patient is killed or paralyzed.

Wrong - paralyzed patients have big special damages and lawyers will want in on a potential 10 million dollar verdict o settlement.

Will result in a devastating increase in medical injuries, which already claims up to 5400 lives in Florida each year.

How? They are claiming that doctors will screw up on purpose?

WILL COST YOU HUNDREDS OF DOLLARS A YEAR


How?

Medical errors cost every family in Florida over $500 dollars a year more in health care related costs, while those responsible for these errors get off scot-free.

No they don't. They have medical boards to answer to, as well.

Amendment 3 will make this even worse -- That means higher insurance rates and higher health care costs for all Floridians.

That just does not make sense.

A GIFT TO INSURANCE COMPANIES & HMOS THAT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHTS

No, you've still got the right to sue and recover. Just makes lawyers less money.


Changes the Medical Liability System so that your right to hold the healthcare system accountable for a life-threatening medical error is virtually wiped out.

Puffery.

Makes the Medical Liability System even worse by giving insurance companies even more of an unfair advantage over average citizens in Florida’s legal system.


Aren't good lawyers supposed to regain the advantage of the plaintiffs?

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[slingblade 0]

I must say that while amendment 3 will not help doctors much, it will help patients by allowing them to keep more of their settlements. Ergo it is a beneficial move for FL voters. Apparently many voters have forgotten that their doctors are their best and most powerful (as a group) proponents, whereas their friendly neighborhood lawyer simply goes where the money is. Ideally, the practice of law should also be to protect individual rights against the transgressions of more powerful interests just as physicians, by the very nature of their title, work for the benefit of all people. Since we all have to deal with doctors at some point in our lives, we have nothing whatsoever to gain by having unlicensed doctors/dentists or under-trained (ie the ones who cut off wrong toes, legs, etc.) ones or even ones who criminally neglect their duties to the patient and work drunk, stoned, exhausted or whatever practicing in our state. Amendment 3 however, as my ex-wife Dagny quotes, has nothing whatsoever to do with improving or degrading the quality of care in Florida as the lawyer union would have you believe. Obviously there are negligent people in every field (including law, BTW), but these people aren't pursued with such vigor because they aren't perceived to be walking lottery tickets like doctors. How often do you see an ad on TV that says... Did you eat today? Did your stomach not quite feel right after you ate? YOU MAY HAVE BEEN POISONED!!! Call us at Greedy and Greedy we will fight for your rights. You may be entitled to compensation for your missed work and toilet paper. Call us today! before its too late! Obviously if eating establishments were held to a pious standard as doctors are then a slick lawyer could dig up the source of your Ecoli and prove that little Crissy didn't wash her hands when she went to the crapper and a jury might award you a big settlement. Now why doesnt Joe lawyer advertise this on TV? there are many many many more cases of food poisoning every year than there are actual medical negligence cases. And someone was obviously negligent in washing his hands like the sign says before returning to work. I'll tell you why. Because little suzy taco maker HAS NO MONEY to pay Johnny Cochran's fee that's why. If you died from the botulism poisoning, or had to have part of your intestines removed from the damage you might be able to go SEARCHING for that altruistic lawyer but you can bet your colon that he won't be advertising to you on TV. So vote yes on amendment 3 to help level the playing field for YOU the patients not for the docs or the lawyers. Doctors can't just raises their fees to make up the difference like a lawyer can. Because your HMO will still only pay what they choose to pay your doctor. IF your doc charges 50 for an office visit, she may get 25 from the HMO whereas if you pay cash then she might get the whole 50 minus income tax of course. How many of you would name your primary in your law suit if a surgeon he referred you to replaced the wrong heart valve thinking that he too might have deep pockets (might be a walking lottery ticket)? How many of you who would realize that the average TAKE HOME PAY of a primary care physician who takes HMO's is less than many of you probably take home at around 45-65k a year?

3 YES

7,8 NO

Fuzzy

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I must say that while amendment 3 will not help doctors much

It amazes me how no one reads the actual amendments.

Of course it will help doctors. That's the point of the freakin thing.

Forty-two

[slingblade 0]

It amazes me as well how dyslexic people become when they read. The title of the damned amendment is "Claimant's right to fair compensation." not Doctors right to keep more of their money. Where in the text of the amendment do you see that it helps a doctor? Do you assume that if it hurts a lawyer it must by definition help a doctor? If you read it again, without your eyes crossed this time, you will see that it allows a patient to keep more of the money they sue for rather than paying 1/2 of it in legal fees. Let me say this louder and slower to help you understand...THE BAD DOCTOR WHO GETS SUED FOR MALPRACTICE AND IS FOUND GUILTY STILL PAYS THE SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY. You confuse the fact that doctors are pushing for this on behalf of their patients with the notion that doctors will not get sued as much. Read it again. This is Tuna right? I thought Dagny taught you better.

[tunaplanet 0]

Nah. This is a great amendment for doctors. The effects of this to them are tremendous.

Go back and read it again. Keep re-reading it. If you are having trouble comprehending it PM and I'll walk you through it. I'm here to help and educate.

Forty-two

[slingblade 0]

Quote

Nah. This is a great amendment for doctors. The effects of this to them are tremendous.

Go back and read it again. Keep re-reading it. If you are having trouble comprehending it PM and I'll walk you through it. I'm here to help and educate.

Hehe, funny. I am interestied in what amazing insight you might have into the situation that is not available in the public domain (ie political ads full of hypotheticals). Help me and educate me on what tremendous benefit Dr. Dagny will see from it once she graduates. If you can school me in a private message then surely you can educate everyone at once. After all, wouldn't your wisdom benefit anyone who ever has to see a doctor?

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Now why doesnt Joe lawyer advertise this on TV? there are many many many more cases of food poisoning every year than there are actual medical negligence cases. And someone was obviously negligent in washing his hands like the sign says before returning to work. I'll tell you why. Because little suzy taco maker HAS NO MONEY to pay Johnny Cochran's fee that's why. If you died from the botulism poisoning, or had to have part of your intestines removed from the damage you might be able to go SEARCHING for that altruistic lawyer but you can bet your colon that he won't be advertising to you on TV.

I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about. Let me give you lawrocket's first axiom on litigation: "The courts care not what has happened, but only what can be proven."

Yes, there are many more cases of food poisoning each year than medical negligence. It's pretty easy to pin the blame on the OB for that enterocutaneous fistula that developed post c-section. It's pretty easy to pin the blame on the orthopedic surgeon for that subtrochanteric fracture that was reduced to 90 degrees instead of 135. WHy? Because those doctors were the ONLY ones at the site.

Let's say you go to little Suzy for some tacos. The next morning you're struck with an e. coli infection. You think, "Must have been Suzy!" Maybe it was. Or maybe it was from any meal you'd had that day. Or maybe you shook hands with someone who was a carrier. Or maybe it came from that bottle of all natural fruit juice.

Maybe it turned out your kid had botulism. It could have come from Suzy. Or, it could have come from that peanut butter and honey sandwich. I'd like SuzyWoo's. Can't do it? Then you are paying court costs for Suzy.

That's why you don't go after little Suzy all the time. You've got a thousand contacts that could have caused that illness. It's easier to pin on a doctor. I'd venture to say that med mal cases are easier to prove, though a little more costly (expert testimony, standard of care, etc.).

Next time you get a flat tire, try thinking of who you can pin it on. Then you'll understand the issues of "proof" with Suzy versus doctors.

Still, I believe that this Amendment is good thing for society, if not for members of my profession.

p.s. - I saw in another thread where you reference a doctor being found "guilty" of malpractice. No such thing. A doctor can be liable for it. "Guilty" is a term of criminal law.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Jib 0]

Quote

Taking a med-mal case to trial might cost $100,000.00.

Might? Some cost a lot more than that. I know of one firm that lost a case with $1M in costs (multiple defendants and experts). Some insurance companies match the Plaintiff's costs dollar for dollar.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[slingblade 0]

Quote

I am afraid you don't know what you are talking about.

True, I don't know law well enough. It isn't my field, and I've only had one course in medical jurisprudence so I am far from an expert. I'm sure the professor would be disappointed in me for not remembering the diff in liability and guilt, however, the point of my little analogy still stands. Surely you could find some "expert" somewhere that could "prove" to the court that based on the type of bacteria and the timing of symptoms that Pizza Pete's pizza cutter must have been the fomite. Anyway, my point is that nobody wants to go through the trouble of doing that because Pete's pockets are too shallow to bother.....translated as: Not enough money in it for the atty to take the case and do all that work.

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I am far from an expert.

I concur.

Forty-two

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

it is already very hard to get a lawyer to take a malpractice case ( a good one anyway).

I damn near ruined my minitor this morning by soitting my coffee all over it when I read this nonsense. Lawyers and malpractice lawsuits are like wolves and a bloody deer carcass.

This has bevome sue-happy country where every moron wants to get-rich-quick any way they can...ethical methods or not. Doctors have a big fucking bullseye on their back because why? Because they have money. These jack-asses are getting rich off of suing innocent doctors.

Truth. Especially the part about people turning into greedy sickos when they think they can sue someone to spend the rest of their life rich.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Hate to disagree with you but it is already very hard to get a lawyer to take a malpractice case ( a good one anyway). My wife was suppose to have had a ovary removed about 18 years ago. Last year she had a hysterectomy and the same ovary that was removed was still there. Not only was it there but the size of a grapefruit. The doctor said both of the ovaries were still there, ruling out the wrong one was removed. We could not get a single law firm to take the case. We had bills from both the hospital and the doctor for thr first removal.

I urge you to stop bad doctors and vote against amendment 3

You have not given us enough information about your wife's anecdotal case to prove the need for this amendment. You also haven't shown how a lawyer getting to keep between 10 and 30 percent of a malpractice judgment is reason for the lawyer to not be willing to take the case.

WHY DID THE LAWYERS REFUSE TO TAKE YOUR CASE, IF IT IS AS CLEAR-CUT A CASE OF MALPRACTICE AS YOUR STORY MAKES IT SEEM?

HAD THE [I]STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUN OUT? You did say it was 18 years later... How long is the S of L?

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

I urge you to stop bad doctors and vote against amendment 3

I'd rather stop greedy lawyers. Definitly voting yes on this one.

Also, vote no for amendment 8.

Forty-two

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Quote

Taking a med-mal case to trial might cost $100,000.00.

Might? Some cost a lot more than that. I know of one firm that lost a case with $1M in costs (multiple defendants and experts). Some insurance companies match the Plaintiff's costs dollar for dollar.

All costs, for everything, are out of control ridiculous.

When it costs tens of thousands of dollars to drag some "expert" into court so that he can say what you PAID him to say (where the fuck is the credibility in that?!) what the fuck do you expect, a cheap case? All of these costs are inflated to an absurd degree. Clinton went millions into debt (paid off for him by the suckers who still liked him, of course) defending against the accusations made against him. There's no fucking way that prosecuting OR defending a court case should cost anything near as much as it does. It's because people have gone insane and lost all rationality and perspective.

Tort reform is desperately needed in this country.

Look at how many dozens of cases have been brought -- AND LOST -- against the firearms industry, using the same bogus fraudulent theory of liability... and still the cases continue. Their admitted goal: to bankrupt the firearms companies one-by-one through the exorbitant costs of litigation, until there are no more, and then oooh lookie, a de facto ban on guns, since no one will make them anymore because they can't afford to. (No answer yet from the plaintiffs as to who they expect will make guns for the police and military to use.)

And the Democrats poisoned the bill that would have stopped this injustice.

-Jeffrey

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

You have not given us enough information about your wife's anecdotal case to prove the need for this amendment. You also haven't shown how a lawyer getting to keep between 10 and 30 percent of a malpractice judgment is reason for the lawyer to not be willing to take the case.

WHY DID THE LAWYERS REFUSE TO TAKE YOUR CASE, IF IT IS AS CLEAR-CUT A CASE OF MALPRACTICE AS YOUR STORY MAKES IT SEEM?

HAD THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS RUN OUT? You did say it was 18 years later... How long is the S of L?

I believe it was the time factor and the cost of taking it to trial. My main point is that it is not easy to get even a good malpractice case to trial, why make it any harder.

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

I'd rather stop greedy lawyers. Definitly voting yes on this one.

how about greedy doctors. One i jump with works 3 1/2 days a week. Must be rough

[tunaplanet 0]

Quote

how about greedy doctors. One i jump with works 3 1/2 days a week.

How is that greedy?

You put yourself through 4 years of college.

You put yourself through 4 years of med school.

You work insane hours for an additional 4 years in residency making low income.

You pay 85K+ a year in malpractive insurance.

Go do all that and come back and see if you have the same mindset.

Think outside the box.

Forty-two

[bodypilot90 0]

Quote

How is that greedy?

You put yourself through 4 years of college.

You put yourself through 4 years of med school.

You work insane hours for an additional 4 years in residency making low income.

40k a year isn't bad for a rookie

Quote

You pay 85K+ a year in malpractive insurance.

Go do all that and come back and see if you have the same mindset.

Think outside the box.

I call greedy when I know I have a sinus infection and need some antibiotic. Can I go get some? no I have to go to a doctor who spends less than 5 minuites and it goes like this.

Dr Greed "when seems to be the trouble"

Me " I have a sinus infection and need some antibiotic. I have a green yellow discharge and a cough"

Dr. Greed "let me check you out, poke, prod, yep that's what it is. Here's your prescription. and lets get you back here for a recheck.

me "ok"

what has he done for his money? told me what I knew. I never go back for a recheck because, I knew what I had and knew what I needed....

what did it cost? I have a ppo so $20 co-pay but did I really need to go? Dr Greed made 60-80 bucks in 5 mins.

let's take the lower amount of $60 for 5 min "work"
that's $1200 a hour.

[billvon 3,120]

>I call greedy when I know I have a sinus infection and need some antibiotic.

People using antibiotics when they don't need them is one of the biggest problems in infectious diseases today. I have a friend who almost lost her foot to MRSA, due partly to people who "want antibiotics."

>what has he done for his money?

A clockmaker is called into a museum to fix an antique clock. He looks at the clock for an hour, pokes a bit, thinks a lot. Then he turns one screw 90 degrees. The clock starts working perfectly. He gives the curator a bill for $500.

"$500? You only turned one screw!"

"Yep," he says. "It was $0.25 for turning the screw, $499.75 for knowing which one to turn."

In your case - he got paid $0.25 for prescribing the drug, $59.75 for ruling out a hundred other diseases and making sure the drug you asked for was really what you needed. Complaining about that is like complaining about how much airline pilots get paid, when all they have to do is push buttons.