Edwards's career tied to jury award debate

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/15/edwardss_career_tied_to_jury_award_debate/

Senator John Edwards, the North Carolina lawyer running for president, built a career out of winning historic jury awards for children who suffered birth defects allegedly because doctors mishandled their deliveries -- from a record $6.5 million in 1985 to a new record of $23 million in his last trial in 1997.

His summations became legendary, with lawyers crowding the courtroom to listen to Edwards move jurors to tears. "What value do you attach to the emotional suffering that this little girl will have for the rest of her life?" he asked in his breakthrough case, in 1985. "I wouldn't take $10 million for it." Edwards also persuaded the jury that the hospital was responsible, even though the doctor was not an employee.

But in a precursor of battles to come, the trial judge set aside a portion of the $6.5 million verdict as excessive, and an appeals court agreed. The North Carolina Hospital Association filed an unsuccessful protest brief, claiming Edwards had opened a new avenue for malpractice cases.

Now, spurred by President Bush, Republicans are seeking to limit awards for pain and suffering, saying juries are driving up the cost of health care. On Saturday, Texas voters narrowly supported a $750,000 cap on pain and suffering awards. Today, North Carolina is scheduled to consider limiting such awards to $250,000. While Edwards helped block a similar bill in the Senate last July, Republicans are vowing to take it up again, putting Edwards -- and his career -- back in the spotlight.

[kang]

1. This is an unfortunate weakness of Edwards'

since malpractice cases can often be incredibly legitimate (doctors can be negligent). On the other hand, my mother is a OB-GYN and I will tell you that many doctors can barely stay afloat because of the incredibly high cost of malpractice insurance. From a few news reports that I've seen on this issue, the cost of malpractice insurance actually hurts rural America the most since many doctors can't stay in business or simply move. There needs to be a cap on punitive damages, with some exception for extreme cases of negligence (doctor was drunk, high, etc.).

Unlike the general "experience" issue that Bush would use against Edwards (if he was the nominee), this is the key issue that Rove thinks he has on Edwards. After all, the fact that Edwards has very successfully fund-raised from plaintiffs law firms puts him in a rather tight spot. He's got a good answer for it right now, but he could also use the issue to put out a compromise position that would look like he's standing against insurance companies and big hospitals on one side, but not being in the pocket of his fellow lawyers to the detriment of regular Americans.

[boilertommy]

2. Punitive Damages

Kang---Put a cap on punitive damages and the average guy will no longer be able to afford a good lawyer to take on the platoons of lawyers the insurance companies easily afford. This would disarm us and put us at the mercy of the insurance companies.

[AP]

4. Also, economic losses are tiny for kids and old people and for things

that ruin the way you look or your ability to reproduce.

Capping everyhting except economic damages is like saying it's OK to hurt kids and old people, and, when in doubt, remove a woman's breasts and a man's testicles, and who cares if you scar someone for life.

[baby_bear]

3. The role of insurance companies needs to be examined

...in terms of why malpractice insurance has gotten so high. It's not exactly like they are neutral parties or non-profits. I have read that they lost tons of money in the stock market and are making it up by jacking up the prices of insurance to the doctors.

We need to be careful not to allow the Repugs to bail out the insurance companies by capping malpractice awards, period. They make it sound like only the doctors would benefit -- they don't talk about insurance companies.

I'm no expert in this, but I know it's not as simple as the Repugs make out, and that trial lawyers are not all part of the axis of evil.

s_m

[kang]

6. Both of you make good points

I'm not in any way saying that insurance companies aren't playing a major part in this (I should've mentioned it), but I'm just saying that this is a major problem right now for doctors. Many of these doctors simply can't stay in business and something has to be done. I don't think a higher level of negligence for no-cap punitive damages is an unreasonable solution that shouldn't be looked at (I was just throwing it out there since I'm not an expert on this by any measure).

All I do know is that I hope something is done since the current situation is driving out alot of doctors who simply want to be able to take care of their patients. My med student friends tell me that the most popular fields now are the ones that don't have high rates.

On the political level, this is going to be tricky as to which side the public will come down on. Being a lawyer myself, I know that people do get a certain image in their head when people say "trial lawyer" or "ambulance-chaser" as unfair as that is.

[AP]

10. Health care and drug industries are extremely profitable even in this econ

If Doctors are having problems, it isn't because there isn't profit to be made in their field (which should be offsetting insurance costs).

[AP]

5. I actually think this is a strength for Edwards. If the debate is over

who you think should be responsible for their negligence, corporations and the wealth, or the people they injure, it will really distract the election from terrorism and war (and will actually put some of the war and national issues in interesting relief), this can only help Democrats and hurt Republicans.

And if Edwards could convince juries, why do you think he can't convince all America what he did was right.

[kang]

7. If somebody can win this debate, it's Edwards

It does fit nicely with his whole campaign theme of little guy versus big companies. I hope you're right.

[chimpymustgo]

9. Edwards spent his career fighting big corporations.

He has already made it clear that if Rove wants to go there - bring it on. He'll pull a serious jujitsu on them with this one.

[renie408]

8. Not trying to sound like I think

my guy is infallible, but where is the problem here? I figure Edwards knows what he did for a living before he entered politics. I figure that he already has a defense for himself that turns things back on his detractors so down pat he can say it in his sleep. I don't see it as a problem. In fact, my mom, who is a rabid Republican, just asked me this morning how Edwards earned his money. I told her and I told her that there are many people who would call him an ambulance chaser. She basically shrugged and said that as long as it was honest and within the system, she was ok with it. I think that there are many people who will feel that way.

[sandnsea]

11. He has a plan!

He's also introducting legislation in Congress. Because he's spent his whole life protecting children when they've been hurt, he's had an opportunity to observe the system from the inside out and knows better than anybody what needs to be fixed. He wants 3 strikes rules for doctors and lawyers. If lawyers file lawsuits that don't have a doctor ready to testify and their case is dismissed as frivilous or deemed by a board to be frivilous, 3 strikes they're out. 5% of doctors have had claims paid more than once and are responsible for half the claims filed, 3 strikes you're out. There's also insurance laws that need to be changed and he also reminds that insurance investment losses are as responsible for premiums as the malpractice awards. So he hits it head on. He knows the industry and knows caps haven't worked in places like California and they had to change their insurance laws to bring prices down. He will be great on this because he actually knows what he's talking about, is honest about the changes needed, and knows first hand where the money goes. It would be a great debate, he'd win hands down.

http://www.johnedwards2004.com/healthcare-costs.asp

[DemDogs]

12. Right on

Edwards does have an answer, which says a lot about him.
He also responded to Bush's attack last year when he said Bush could side with insurance companies, he's side with kids and families.

Doctors are blaming lawyers for insurance premium increases when even doctors know that it is the stock market that the insurers are responding to when they raise rates, not malpractice claims.

There are some frivolous cases. But if you want to go after frivolous cases, go after those. Don't go after serious injuries and life-long disabilities. A cap punishes injured children and non-employed people. There is no one more capable of making this argument than Edwards.