lawrocket 3 #1 February 18, 2005 I saw this op-ed article and decided to read it. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=18&u=/ucru/20050126/cm_ucru/whowantstobeamedicalmalpracticemillionaire This guy talking about damages is like the news indicating that a guy's parachute malfunctioned after he hooked it in. "Punitive Damages" are capped? This guy actually doesn't know the difference between punitive damages and "pain and suffering." I truly believe that his entire column is a Freudian slip. "Punitive" means, in a legal sense, "by way of punishment." Punitive damages are awarded by the wealth of the Defendant to punish and make an example of that defendant. Pain and suffering, also known as "general damages" is meant to compensate the individual for just that - pain and suffering. By statute in many states, these damages are capped. Monetary damages for medical bills, lost income, future costs, etc., are not capped. Notice that this writer (yes, the infamous Ted Rall) seems only to focus on punishing doctors for making mistakes? He's not worried about compensating plaintiffs. By the nautre of his Freudian words, all he wants to do is punish the doctors. Columns like his cement, in my mind, why we lawyers need to have damages capped in medical malpractice cases. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 36 #2 February 18, 2005 QuoteEver read anything by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? On these forums? Hell yeah, all the time! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mr2mk1g 10 #3 February 18, 2005 hahahaha, the idiot. How do we write to this guy and tell him what a prat he is? You'd think he'd at least take 5 minutes to understand the very basics of what he's talking about given the breadth of his audience. Over here punitive damages are virtually unheard of - they exist to punish the worst of cases... but that's exactly the point - they're reserved for the very worst of cases. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diablopilot 2 #4 February 19, 2005 QuoteEver read anything by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? You realize you just posted this question on Dropzone.com, right? ---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tcnelson 1 #5 February 19, 2005 yeah, the most recent is ward churchill...he's my vote for most recent assbag."Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
bobsled92 0 #6 February 19, 2005 Quoteyeah, the most recent is ward churchill...he's my vote for most recent assbag. AMEN! to that I'm astounded that he even exhists_______________________________ If I could be a Super Hero, I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year. http://www.hangout.no/speednews/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #7 February 19, 2005 QuoteEver read anything by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? Yeah, I read a lot of billvon's posts... (and I'll get a lot more studying done when I am banned. ) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #8 February 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteEver read anything by someone who doesn't know what he's talking about? Oh yeah, especially some of the crap I've written. Though lately I'm trying not to post when I've been drinking... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kmcguffee 0 #9 February 20, 2005 LOL!! Had to be said. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #10 February 20, 2005 QuoteI saw this op-ed article and decided to read it. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=18&u=/ucru/20050126/cm_ucru/whowantstobeamedicalmalpracticemillionaire This guy talking about damages is like the news indicating that a guy's parachute malfunctioned after he hooked it in. "Punitive Damages" are capped? This guy actually doesn't know the difference between punitive damages and "pain and suffering." I truly believe that his entire column is a Freudian slip. "Punitive" means, in a legal sense, "by way of punishment." Punitive damages are awarded by the wealth of the Defendant to punish and make an example of that defendant. Pain and suffering, also known as "general damages" is meant to compensate the individual for just that - pain and suffering. By statute in many states, these damages are capped. Monetary damages for medical bills, lost income, future costs, etc., are not capped. Notice that this writer (yes, the infamous Ted Rall) seems only to focus on punishing doctors for making mistakes? He's not worried about compensating plaintiffs. By the nautre of his Freudian words, all he wants to do is punish the doctors. Columns like his cement, in my mind, why we lawyers need to have damages capped in medical malpractice cases. I can't tell if this post is more about legal ignorance or hate for makng doctors pay punitive damages. Obviously, your version of the punitive and pain and suffering are correct, and I agree, but but isn't it a bit of an Ad Hominem to say that punitive damages in the medical area need to be capped because this author is unaware of the difference between the two? I don't care about some author, but I do like litigation and the option of unabridged punitives. It's funny how the same crowd that hates punitives also loves the idea of criminal deterrence - they're the same but on opposite sides of the fence. Point is, if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. Furthermore, if we're going to regulate the litigious apsect of medical practice, then we need to regulate the business of medical practice by way of regulating fees to be be fair - you can't pull the tablecloth down on one side only; you must pull it down on both sides simultaneously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Sen.Blutarsky 0 #11 February 20, 2005 QuoteYeah, I read a lot of billvon's posts... A personal favorite was the "smoking incident" he posted in the Incidents forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #12 February 21, 2005 Quote if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. You're kinda mixing apples and oranges. I see how you included "gross" negligence in here, but still, the civil system is designed to make people whole again with the exception of punitive damages. Negligence suits, while the operate as a "deterrent" do NOT deter conduct. I did 3,400 dollars damage to your car? Well, then I'll be liable for $3,400 dollars for damage. By the way, punitive damages ARE capped. They must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages. Let's say you start and altercation and rip my can of Pepsi out of my hand. I sue you for assault, battery and conversion and I get a $1,000 verdict against you that will make me whole for my loss of dignity and my Pepsi. Ah, but these torts open the door to punitive damages. I have a slick attorney who gets a punitive damages award for $500,000 against you. (You don't think this stuff has happened? Think again.) Woldn't a verdict like that piss YOU off? Is a verdict like that fair? Shouldn't verdicts like that be capped or policed by the federal courts? (as it is, only the US Supreme Court can police them). These states that limit pain and suffering did so as a result of balancing conflicting policies. Is it fair? I don't think it is. But I also believe that it is necessary. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites EBSB52 0 #13 February 21, 2005 QuoteQuote if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. And that is at least part of what this thread is about, right? Isn't this about punitive damages? My point: Gross negligence lawsuits currently lead to punitive damage awards - punitive damage awards lead to people thinking twice, right? Is that deterrence? Again, I think the Whole concept of deterrence is BS, but I was makingthe comparison that the people who do subscribe to criminal deterrence theory are the same that reject punitive damages. Regardless of whether punitive awards stem from negligence awards or not, which I believe they can, the general concept of deterrence is a one-way street many times with fiscal elitists that feel they won't be criminally prosecuted so they subscribe to criminal deterrence theory, yet they disavow punitive damages that I consider to be civil deterrence. Question: You're the lawyer, can Gross Negligence lawsuits lead to punitive awards? If not, what kind of lawsuits lead to punitive damage awards? Ah, but these torts open the door to punitive damages. I have a slick attorney who gets a punitive damages award for $500,000 against you. (You don't think this stuff has happened? Think again.) I know it happens, but whether it's 50k or 500k I would likely bankrupt, as would most other people. If the pendulum swings the other way and punitive damages are essentially extinct, then people would be more likely to act with libel, slander and every other Woldn't a verdict like that piss YOU off? Is a verdict like that fair? Shouldn't verdicts like that be capped or policed by the federal courts? Piss me off - depends upon the deserving nature of it. If I did something really egregious, I could see it. Fair - fair is subjective. I think I a person did something horrible, punitive damages are fair. Capped or policed by the courts - How many people are convicted of capital crimes and the courts fail to police it? People have been wrongfully executed while the courts an out Commander in Chimp make jokes about it, so life and liberty are more important than property. Sure, it would be nice if things were always equitable, but that’s utopian. Look, it comes down to this, people that have money fear civil litigation, especially punitive damages as they are the wildcard. People that don’t have money love the concept of making a rich person/corp pay for their dirty deeds, so it’s a paradigm issue, not a fairness issue. Let me win the lottery and join the elitist perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Join the conversation You can post now and register later. 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. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
kmcguffee 0 #9 February 20, 2005 LOL!! Had to be said. "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Ben Franklin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #10 February 20, 2005 QuoteI saw this op-ed article and decided to read it. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=127&ncid=742&e=18&u=/ucru/20050126/cm_ucru/whowantstobeamedicalmalpracticemillionaire This guy talking about damages is like the news indicating that a guy's parachute malfunctioned after he hooked it in. "Punitive Damages" are capped? This guy actually doesn't know the difference between punitive damages and "pain and suffering." I truly believe that his entire column is a Freudian slip. "Punitive" means, in a legal sense, "by way of punishment." Punitive damages are awarded by the wealth of the Defendant to punish and make an example of that defendant. Pain and suffering, also known as "general damages" is meant to compensate the individual for just that - pain and suffering. By statute in many states, these damages are capped. Monetary damages for medical bills, lost income, future costs, etc., are not capped. Notice that this writer (yes, the infamous Ted Rall) seems only to focus on punishing doctors for making mistakes? He's not worried about compensating plaintiffs. By the nautre of his Freudian words, all he wants to do is punish the doctors. Columns like his cement, in my mind, why we lawyers need to have damages capped in medical malpractice cases. I can't tell if this post is more about legal ignorance or hate for makng doctors pay punitive damages. Obviously, your version of the punitive and pain and suffering are correct, and I agree, but but isn't it a bit of an Ad Hominem to say that punitive damages in the medical area need to be capped because this author is unaware of the difference between the two? I don't care about some author, but I do like litigation and the option of unabridged punitives. It's funny how the same crowd that hates punitives also loves the idea of criminal deterrence - they're the same but on opposite sides of the fence. Point is, if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. Furthermore, if we're going to regulate the litigious apsect of medical practice, then we need to regulate the business of medical practice by way of regulating fees to be be fair - you can't pull the tablecloth down on one side only; you must pull it down on both sides simultaneously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sen.Blutarsky 0 #11 February 20, 2005 QuoteYeah, I read a lot of billvon's posts... A personal favorite was the "smoking incident" he posted in the Incidents forum. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #12 February 21, 2005 Quote if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. You're kinda mixing apples and oranges. I see how you included "gross" negligence in here, but still, the civil system is designed to make people whole again with the exception of punitive damages. Negligence suits, while the operate as a "deterrent" do NOT deter conduct. I did 3,400 dollars damage to your car? Well, then I'll be liable for $3,400 dollars for damage. By the way, punitive damages ARE capped. They must bear a reasonable relationship to the damages. Let's say you start and altercation and rip my can of Pepsi out of my hand. I sue you for assault, battery and conversion and I get a $1,000 verdict against you that will make me whole for my loss of dignity and my Pepsi. Ah, but these torts open the door to punitive damages. I have a slick attorney who gets a punitive damages award for $500,000 against you. (You don't think this stuff has happened? Think again.) Woldn't a verdict like that piss YOU off? Is a verdict like that fair? Shouldn't verdicts like that be capped or policed by the federal courts? (as it is, only the US Supreme Court can police them). These states that limit pain and suffering did so as a result of balancing conflicting policies. Is it fair? I don't think it is. But I also believe that it is necessary. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
EBSB52 0 #13 February 21, 2005 QuoteQuote if heavy criminal penalties deter crime, then heavy civil penalties should deter civil misconduct and deter gross negligence. And that is at least part of what this thread is about, right? Isn't this about punitive damages? My point: Gross negligence lawsuits currently lead to punitive damage awards - punitive damage awards lead to people thinking twice, right? Is that deterrence? Again, I think the Whole concept of deterrence is BS, but I was makingthe comparison that the people who do subscribe to criminal deterrence theory are the same that reject punitive damages. Regardless of whether punitive awards stem from negligence awards or not, which I believe they can, the general concept of deterrence is a one-way street many times with fiscal elitists that feel they won't be criminally prosecuted so they subscribe to criminal deterrence theory, yet they disavow punitive damages that I consider to be civil deterrence. Question: You're the lawyer, can Gross Negligence lawsuits lead to punitive awards? If not, what kind of lawsuits lead to punitive damage awards? Ah, but these torts open the door to punitive damages. I have a slick attorney who gets a punitive damages award for $500,000 against you. (You don't think this stuff has happened? Think again.) I know it happens, but whether it's 50k or 500k I would likely bankrupt, as would most other people. If the pendulum swings the other way and punitive damages are essentially extinct, then people would be more likely to act with libel, slander and every other Woldn't a verdict like that piss YOU off? Is a verdict like that fair? Shouldn't verdicts like that be capped or policed by the federal courts? Piss me off - depends upon the deserving nature of it. If I did something really egregious, I could see it. Fair - fair is subjective. I think I a person did something horrible, punitive damages are fair. Capped or policed by the courts - How many people are convicted of capital crimes and the courts fail to police it? People have been wrongfully executed while the courts an out Commander in Chimp make jokes about it, so life and liberty are more important than property. Sure, it would be nice if things were always equitable, but that’s utopian. Look, it comes down to this, people that have money fear civil litigation, especially punitive damages as they are the wildcard. People that don’t have money love the concept of making a rich person/corp pay for their dirty deeds, so it’s a paradigm issue, not a fairness issue. Let me win the lottery and join the elitist perspective. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
