Natural selection at work

[VXR]

I am so clueless that I hadn't yet realized my face needed saving

That is OK we will all wait...

[VXR]

I'm sorry...

Let's everyone pretend I used the warning label on my windshield sunshade as an example:

DO NOT ATTEMPT TO DRIVE WITH SHADE IN PLACE

Is that a good enough example of a business covering it's @$$ due to possible frivolous litigation?

Of COURSE the McD's lawsuit was what popped into my mind as a prime example, but that's just me...

I've been drinking coffee for decades, & expect it to be hot...

Double sorry...

I don't pay for any televised broadcast, so I haven't seen any hard news on HBO...

Gosh, I feel so inadequate admitting I don't watch much TV..

[Osteomata]

IIRC, McDonalds coffee was significantly hotter than any other large scale provider, and they had had multiple complaints and warnings about it. Its not a matter of stupid people not knowing that coffee is hot, but rather normal citizens haveing a reasonable expectation of what "hot coffee" means, an understanding that was not at all in line with McDonalds superheated version.

My general view, as a soft libertarian, is that there are three methods to control the potential rapaciousness and abuses by large power corporations:
1. government regulation, which as its own set of problems, mainly due to regulatory capture
2. liability law, i.e., civil law suits
3. public opinion translated to market power

I think 3 alone is wonderful, but insufficient. I generally oppose 1 since it will often result in the fox guarding the hen house, and so I am not at all bothered by our supposedly overly litigious society.

[Osteomata]

Nicely stated Sue, well worth the read for those of you who tend to jump over anything longer than three sentences made up mostly of smiley faces, heh.

I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate. A few years ago advocates of tort reform, particularly those with limited knowledge pushing for feel good legislation, would talk primarily/exclusively about the cost of the litigation and related insurance. When studies showed that the sum total of this impact, including ALL litigation (not just the frivolous) even in cases of clear and terrible malpracitce, only totaled about .5% increases in overall medical costs, the advocates had to find an argument that could stand up to inspection. Defensive medicine tends to do that. I have heard recent studies peg this cost at 2.5% or so, certainly not negligable.

[circmand]

Nicely stated Sue, well worth the read for those of you who tend to jump over anything longer than three sentences made up mostly of smiley faces, heh.

I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate. A few years ago advocates of tort reform, particularly those with limited knowledge pushing for feel good legislation, would talk primarily/exclusively about the cost of the litigation and related insurance. When studies showed that the sum total of this impact, including ALL litigation (not just the frivolous) even in cases of clear and terrible malpracitce, only totaled about .5% increases in overall medical costs, the advocates had to find an argument that could stand up to inspection. Defensive medicine tends to do that. I have heard recent studies peg this cost at 2.5% or so, certainly not negligable.

How medical costs are soaring along with insurance costs doe to govt mandates even a .5% increase is not to be auto excepted. Given we could reduce a lot of these cost by getting the medical community to follow proper anti infection procedures I think we need to start doing the long hanging fruit first

[Y33TREKker]

...I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate. A few years ago advocates of tort reform, particularly those with limited knowledge pushing for feel good legislation, would talk primarily/exclusively about the cost of the litigation and related insurance. When studies showed that the sum total of this impact, including ALL litigation (not just the frivolous) even in cases of clear and terrible malpracitce, only totaled about .5% increases in overall medical costs, the advocates had to find an argument that could stand up to inspection. Defensive medicine tends to do that. I have heard recent studies peg this cost at 2.5% or so, certainly not negligable.

That was something else specifically referenced in Hot Coffee. One of the Bush Admin's main reasons cited for pushing tort "reform" was ALL the wasteful court costs associated with frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas which supposedly resulted in the premiums of EVERYONE going up.

As it turned out though, even after the "reforms" were passed reducing the number of cases that actually went to court (many of which were then/now handled instead through mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems), and reducing damage cap liabilities even for legitimate cases of negligence, healthcare costs for EVERYONE in Texas either remained the same overall or cost even more across the board.

So was it all just lip service in favor of big business? Depends on who you ask I guess.

[rsteinmetz70112]

With Medical Claims there is a certain hubris in parts of the medical community that resist any oversight and any development of "best practices" or "standardization of care".

In my business I have seen several frivolous claims aimed at simply finding the deepest pockets. Sometime these are personal injury claims, sometime its buyers remorse, where someone got what they paid for but found they diidn't make as much money as they though they wold so someone one else must be to blame.

[circmand]

Here if you are found 5% liable and someone else is 95% and they do not have the money to pay the judgement you can be liable for the full award. Trying to fix this now but the lawyers say doing so would hurt the victim. They are worried about the victim here how about when a murdered gets out after 2.5 years because a bad childhood made him do it?

[VX KAT]

I would take issue with one or two minor points: I think defensive medical costs have been getting quite a bit of discussion of late, so "noone mentions it" is no longer accurate.

oh, I was referring to LEGAL DEFENSE costs, the amount paid to investigate / defend the claims & lawsuits. Defensive medicine is a whole nutter topic.

That was something else specifically referenced in Hot Coffee. One of the Bush Admin's main reasons cited for pushing tort "reform" was ALL the wasteful court costs associated with frivolous lawsuits in the state of Texas which supposedly resulted in the premiums of EVERYONE going up. That's EXACTLY what I referring to above..Legal Defense Costs

As it turned out though, even after the "reforms" were passed reducing the number of cases that actually went to court (many of which were then/now handled instead through mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems), and reducing damage cap liabilities even for legitimate cases of negligence, - CAREFUL HERE, you're not defining "damage cap", and as it's written, it infers ALL damages are capped.....which is exactly what I was trying to explain is a common misconception. I'm NOT aware of ANY law in any State that caps "special damages". "Special damages" are the actual medical care, treatment, lost income, etc, EVERYTHING EXCEPT PAIN & SUFFERING. Lawmakers have always ensured ALL financial aspects are covered for the injured party, and have never limited/capped them in any way.


healthcare costs for EVERYONE in Texas either remained the same overall or cost even more across the board.

So was it all just lip service in favor of big business? Depends on who you ask I guess.

"mandatory arbitration favoring the healthcare systems"....you realize you're painting the entire system with a broad stroke? Again, from my FRONT ROW seat and experience with mandatory arb, I LOST MANY cases.
The ARB panel is made up of 3 individuals...one picked by the PLAINTIFF, one picked by the DEFENSE, and the 3rd is PICKED BY THE OTHER TWO...so how is that "favoring the healthcare systems"?

With Medical Claims there is a certain hubris in parts of the medical community that resist any oversight and any development of "best practices" or "standardization of care". VERY TRUE!

In my business I have seen several frivolous claims aimed at simply finding the deepest pockets. Sometime these are personal injury claims, sometime its buyers remorse, where someone got what they paid for but found they diidn't make as much money as they though they wold so someone one else must be to blame.

EXTREMELY TRUE, and plaintiff attorneys wll often even ADMIT that's true....they're after the deepest pockets.

Here if you are found 5% liable and someone else is 95% and they do not have the money to pay the judgement you can be liable for the full award. Trying to fix this now but the lawyers say doing so would hurt the victim. They are worried about the victim here how about when a murdered gets out after 2.5 years because a bad childhood made him do it?

That's called "Joint & Several Liability", and it's law in MANY states....so how is that fair to an individual or business that has been found only 5% liable? That's where "for the greater good" philosophy comes into play in a society. But one must realize with "the greater good" comes a cost to all.

[Y33TREKker]

...CAREFUL HERE, you're not defining "damage cap", and as it's written, it infers ALL damages are capped.....which is exactly what I was trying to explain is a common misconception. I'm NOT aware of ANY law in any State that caps "special damages".

Not sure why you're starting to focus so much on semantics. I clearly said "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence".

As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).

Is it possible you're taking my comments too personally because you were one of those people on the front line and you think my comments are being focused directly towards you? If so, I can assure you that's not the case. Seeing as how you said that the company you arbitrated for owned hospitals though, I do have to admit to a slight degree of skepticism regarding how absolutely objective an arbitrator from your company could have been...(possibly favoring the healthcare system). I mean, if we're going to start arguing semantics, being "adequately represented" and being objectively represented can be two very different things.

Now I think that makes the score even as far as questioning personal character as a means of downplaying the validity of points of debate that have been made, so what say we just call it a draw and move on?

[Y33TREKker]

Coincidentally, this news story from today was one of the other stories covered in Hot Coffee with regards to mandatory arbitration, and how it resulted in this woman fighting with KBR/Haliburton company lawyers for years just to be able to have her case heard by a jury in a court of law.

Texas woman loses Iraq rape case against KBR APAP – 1 hr 28 mins ago

HOUSTON (AP) — A Houston jury on Friday rejected the claims against military contractor KBR Inc. by a Texas woman who said she was drugged and raped while working in Iraq.

A federal court jury returned its verdict after starting deliberations Thursday in the case of Jamie Leigh Jones.

Jones, 26, said she was raped in 2005 while working for KBR at Camp Hope, Baghdad. She sued KBR, its former parent Halliburton Co., and a former KBR firefighter, Charles Bortz, whom she identified as one of her rapists. The Houston-based companies and Bortz denied her allegations.

The alleged sexual assault was investigated by authorities but no criminal charges were filed.

Jurors rejected claims that Jones was raped and also her fraud claim against KBR. They agreed with Bortz, who said the sex was consensual.

"We're very pleased with the verdict," said Daniel Hedges, an attorney for KBR.

Jones was sobbing in the courtroom after the verdict was announced.

Jones' attorney had asked jurors to award her as much as 5 percent of KBR's net worth in actual or punitive damages. That would be more than $114 million, the Houston Chronicle reported.

Attorney Ron Estefan, in his closing arguments, accused KBR of neglecting to enforce its policies against sexual harassment for years by its contract workers in Iraq. The neglect facilitated Jones' rape, he said.

Attorneys for Bortz and the companies argued Jones concocted her story out of fear of gossip among co-workers at the camp.

Jones testified she was drugged and then raped by a group of KBR firefighters. She said Bortz was in her room the next morning. During four days of testimony, she told jurors she has no memory of what happened because she believed she was drugged with Rohypnol, known as the "date rape drug," just before she was sexually assaulted.

The Associated Press usually doesn't identify people alleging sexual assault, but Jones' face and name have been in media reports and she has promoted her case on her own website.

Bortz's attorney tried to show that after the alleged rape, Jones did not appear to act like she had been attacked but instead went to work as normal, joked around and talked about camp gossip. Bortz no longer works for KBR.

Joanne Vorpahl, one of KBR's attorneys, tried to portray Jones to jurors as someone with a history of being dishonest on resumes and job applications, including not disclosing in a medical questionnaire she filled out before leaving for Iraq that she had been treated in prior years for various things, including depression, dizziness and kidney and bladder problems. Jones said those were simply mistakes and she never intended to be dishonest.

Jones also accused KBR officials of locking her in a trailer after she told them about the rape and not letting her call her family. She testified she's been treated for post-traumatic stress disorder, takes medications for anxiety and had to have reconstructive surgery for her breasts, which were disfigured in her attack.

KBR and Halliburton, which split in 2007, were unsuccessful in having Jones' case settled through arbitration as stipulated in her contract.

Due in part to Jones' case, federal lawmakers in 2009 approved a measure prohibiting contractors and subcontractors that receive $1 million in funds from the Department of Defense from requiring employees to resolve sexual assault allegations and other claims through arbitration.

[VX KAT]

Not sure why you're starting to focus so much on semantics. I clearly said "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence".

Because semantics can cause some confusion/misunderstanding. All I said was careful, let's make sure you define "damage caps even for legitimate claims of negligence". I was just trying to define the term "damage cap" so others reading would be clear that there's two types of damages, and there's only a "cap" on one of those.

As far as what I've said about mandatory arbitration, the very fact that so many companies include mandatory arbitration clauses in contracts giving citizens little to no recourse without unreasonable efforts to attain due process should be cause for concern for everyone. (cases regarding healthcare weren't the only examples of abuses of the system in the show I've been referring to).
I didn't make any comment or opine in any way on this.

Is it possible you're taking my comments too personally because you were one of those people on the front line and you think my comments are being focused directly towards you?
No, not at all. I'm well aware of the opinions/arguments on both sides of this topic, so I don't take any of it personally.

If so, I can assure you that's not the case. Seeing as how you said that the company you arbitrated for owned hospitals though, I do have to admit to a slight degree of skepticism regarding how absolutely objective an arbitrator from your company could have been...(possibly favoring the healthcare system). I mean, if we're going to start arguing semantics, being "adequately represented" and being objectively represented can be two very different things.
Yes, and there's many words that could be inserted into that sentence as well that would change it's meaning. So let's just drop the word "adequately" from my sentence. "All political parties are represented in the claims and lawsuits brought".

I was not an arbitrator, and the arbitrators are NOT employed by the company or individual lawfirm selecting them. They are independent...most often attorneys or judges in the area. I was providing FACTUAL info....And to reiterate what I said, a 3 person arbitration panel is PICKED in the manner I described....One arbitrator is selected by the defense, , one by the plaintiff, and then those two individuals select the 3rd member. I believe it would be hard to argue that's not a fair system, or that it's stacked in ANYONE's favor....as each party gets to select one member (so that's 50/50) and those two select "a neutral third" as it's called. Yes, you could still argue the first two arbitrators are colored by who selected them, but the "Neutral third" is an attempt to cancel out any such bias.


Now I think that makes the score even as far as questioning personal character as a means of downplaying the validity of points of debate that have been made, so what say we just call it a draw and move on?

I'm not keeping score, or trying to win anything, nor was I questioning anyone's personal character? Where'd that come from?

And if you re-read my comments, you'll see I readily agree there's many legitimate claims, and many frivolous claims. So I'm not downplaying the validity of anyone's points, I just proffered additional factual info since I happen to know info that other's reading this may not, and felt it added important substance to the discussion.
And I'm sure neither of us want "a lot of people to believe the spinned version" of ANY story.

Actually, if you re-read all my entries in this thread, don't believe you can opine what my beliefs are on this subject. I simply put forth factual info, I chose not to provide any personal opinions. Although I see how some could try to guess my opinions based on who I worked for and what I did. I understand that.

There's no "draw" as I wasn't debating, dueling, sparing or fighting...anyone.

[BigSwede]

After all this, I still would never use my crotch as a cupholder, no matter what the temp of the beverage...

You're welcome.