Quote:
Originally Posted by merrylander
Adopt the idea where whoever loses the case pays everybody's expenses. And license some of these so called "experts" they bring in to testify. Capping the awards is unfair to people who really are victims of malpractice, but there should be someway to convey to people why they call it the "practice" of medicine, they don't have all the answers. Saw two doctors on Newhour regarding the Giffords case. They admitted that for 400 years they assumed a damaged brain could not heal, now they are suddenly finding out that it can. The case of the child here recently where the had to remove one side of her brain to stop violent seizures, the other half eventually takes over.
|
I understand the appeal of that position Rob, but consider its practical effect. The only ones capable of bearing the risk of litigation are going to be the well heeled. That would make it that much easier when dealing with a business that has ripped an individual off to say, "screw you, sue us if you want." There's always the possibility that they will come up with a loophole to "justify" their action.
Moreover, much of the information necessary to fully investigate a claim is in the hands of bad actor. The only way to force access to such information is with a lawsuit and the discovery process that is part of such litigation.
All that such a rule is likely to do is to further protect the propertied class from justified claims. Individuals would have to choose between recovering for economic and/or physical harm or being exposed to the risk of total economic annihilation.
Regards,
D-Ray