Pajiba

I recently read an article on Mental Floss about the actual details of this case, and it certainly was misrepresented to the American people.

We don't need tort reform; we need common-sense reform.

I'll be Netflixing this one fo sho.

THANK YOU, Dustin. I was so annoyed by Obama caving to the tired "frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits" canard during the State of the Union.

Thank you Dustin. Every time I heart some blowhard go on about the coffee case I attempt to bring up the specifics. The coffee was kept extra hot so they didn't have to make it as often, and unless I'm mistaken the chain had been warned numerous times before to lower the temp. They are counting on the American people not really paying attention, and not understanding that punative damages are just that: PUNATIVE.

I am opposed to tort reform for the reasons articulated above, BUT I do believe the contingency system has to be reformed. There are so many lawyers who screw their clients just as badly and as unethically as the big corporations, this needs to change.

Superasente: I'm saying that I think the specter of frivolous lawsuits is used as a way to shield large corporations from liability. It's totally overblown and shouldn't be the basis for denying relief to the many, many plaintiffs who deserve it.

Lawyers (at least NY lawyers) are prohibited from bringing frivolous lawsuits: I have to sign a certification each time I file anything that what I'm filing isn't frivolous. I could lose my license if I abuse the court system - no client or case is worth that. Sure, there are lawyers out there who shirk that but, again, I believe tort reform does little but punish people who have been injured and need relief.

I love this review and I will definitely see the documentary when it's available to rent. I've lost my shit on a few people who flippantly reference "the hot coffee lady" as an example of frivolous lawsuits. They don't know the details, and frankly, don't seem to WANT to know the details, because it interferes with their pre-planned "People are stupid and greedy and expect to be reimbursed millions of dollars for being stupid" argument, which I sometimes agree with, but not when you cite THAT case as your only example.

Thank you so much for this review. That is all.

I'm so glad to read this, THANK YOU. Every time I hear the phrase "tort reform", my blood begins to boil and I see red.

About 5 years ago, an OB/GYN pressured my cousin into getting unnecessary laproscopy for non-threatening fibroids in her uterus. I have no doubt in my mind that he was taking advantage of her ignorance for the sole reason that she had excellenthealth insurance. During the operation, he knowingly punctured her colon. Instead of owning it and dealing with it, he sewed her back up, left the room, and was nowhere to be found as my cousin came out of sleep SCREAMING with pain. Three days later, she was in the emergency room, goddamn near died, and then went into a four day coma. I'm starting to cry right now thinking about it. She hasn't been able to work since then, has been in and out of the emergency room and hospital continuously, and to top it off, there were doctors working on her who tried to pressure her from suing the OB/GYN who did this to her.

I'm with samantha t, I honestly wanted to slap Obama when he started talking about tort reform. I hope this documentary can get wide release, maybe we can get Michael Moore to use his influence (say what you will about him, he has influence and means to be able to do it).

Lulu - not to mention that execs are the first ones bitching and moaning and in court about tortious interference with contract, intellectual property beefs, etc. You'd think they would never be so gauche as to seek recourse in court - ha!

"Granted, these cases were cherry picked, and there certainly are frivolous lawsuits, but then again, the tort reform folks have billions of dollars to back up their cherry-picked arguments."

Yeah, because we all know that there aren't tons of small businesses who get killed by stupid and frivolous lawsuits. Not to mention municipalities and states.

but we hate big business, therefore tort reform is bad. Who cares if someone like John Edwards gets rich using junk science, later proven to be totally false, to win huge awards for people. That does not make everyone's costs go up. It's just fun and games.

"Not necessarily because of the direct costs of suits and malpractice insurance, but because they help create a climate where defensive medicine is practiced- instead of one test, run eight, plus the expensive MRI."

Here's where I'm going to get annoyed (or annoying, depending on how you look at it). As a doctor, your duty is to your patient, not to defending yourself against potential lawsuits. Getting sued is not the end of the world. Seriously. Anybody can file a lawsuit and, yes, you have to deal with it and it sucks, but that's what malpractice insurance is for. I practice family law and we get sued every damn day - we insure against it and deal with it when it happens. Sure, our damages are lower than that of a doctor, but that's because we don't pose a bodily harm to our clients when we screw up (well, not a direct bodily harm). If you're afraid of getting sued, medicine (or any other high-stakes profession) is not for you.

It's clearly a very complicated question, and I certainly don't think that medical malpractice is the only cause of high health care costs, or even of overusing resources. There's an element of better-newer-shinier in medicine too, obviously.

I don't want to get into a position of defending or romanticizing modern medicine, because this isn't Gray's Anatomy, some doctors really are assholes, and the system is messed up in large and profound ways. But the evidence, I think, is pretty clear: we spend too much money on too many tests and medications for relatively poor health outcomes, compared to other industrialized countries- who, perhaps not-so-coincidentally, don't handle malpractice in the same way we do either.

Ahhh...tort reform. You want to talk frivolous lawsuits, look no further than the lady who fell in a mall fountain because she was texting. She is suing the mall for emotional distress because video of the incident hit YouTube and she thinks mall employees are behind it. That's a frivolous lawsuit.

Yes, the medical malpractice system needs desperate reform. That's part of the reason medical care in is country is stupid expensive. There are legitimate lawsuits out there, but for every legitimate one, there are 65 that are trumped up crap. I get utterly infuriated when people sure over things that were their own fault. You didn't follow post-op doctor instructions? Guess what, that's not the doctor's fault. I have friends in medical school and the cost of malpractice insurance is so much that they usually wind up taking out another $10000 in loans to cover it.

RIP, I'm so sorry about your sister. That's utter crap and I hope she finds some comfort soon.

One of the other giant factors in the high cost of medical care in this country in the insurance lobby. There are so many expenses that the cost is inflated by the insurance lobbies so that they can deny to pay for it. It's insane. I hate the insurance companies. However, they make insane donations to very powerful people in Washington and the insurance lobbyist are some of the most powerful in DC. That's one more reason why NOTHING will get fixed until someone takes the insurance companies to task for what they do.

People think that because they've seen "Law & Order," they know how it works. Also, people are stupid. Although, I've noticed that people become A LOT less "we need tort reform, greedy lawyers are destroying America" when they get screwed by someone and need legal recourse. Of course, THEY need legal recourse, but other people don't. And their extremely limited understanding of individual cases that they read about online or heard third-hand from an acquaintance is superior to that of the plaintiffs or the lawyers involved.

What's really hilarious is that giant corporations are some of the most litigious motherfuckers on earth. They would say they're just protecting their interests, blah blah blah. Apparently, they believe they're the only ones entitled to do that. You want to see giant lawsuits? Try copyright or patent infringement cases. That shit doesn't usually make the news that us regular people read/watch, but the amounts of money involved are often just as eye-popping as the injured baby cases. But I don't hear a lot of CEOs talking about the need for reform in that area of law.

Well, L.O.V.E., that's one way to start a fight.

Then why didn't you just say that? That's good, personalizing information that adds to the discussion. I'm not trying to hammer at this, but I only mention it because I've been on the receiving end of a tossed off, off-base insult of yours before, and seen them directed at others many more times than that. I appreciate your taking the time to put a face on your comment here.

Melody - the system doesn't work like that. Insurance companies don't determine how much is charged, it's physicians and facilities that do that based on complex systems that may as well be voodoo. The role of insurance companies in this part of the process is to negotiate with providers what percentage of the services they will actually pay. Insurance companies do set their own rates based on the increasing number of claims they receive, and the higher cost services we Americans just can't get enough of (love those MRIs!). And of course, greed. This is what we pay in premiums and out of pocket costs. They are evil, but not in that specific way.

Paddydog - It's an illegal conflict of interest for a doctor to refer patients to some other health care entity from which they directly profit. Not saying some docs don't try to get away with this, but when caught it's a big deal. C'est vrai?

I will agree with what a few people have mentioned, that many Americans (don't know if this is uniquely American) have this attitude now that if they/a family member are harmed in any way - anything from experiencing public humiliation to accidental death - SOMEBODY has got to pay. I do blame lawyers for this.

I don't have a solution for it, however. I don't know how we'd go about legislating greed or assholishness out of the equation, or getting people to agree that sometimes something isn't anybody's fault and a lawsuit isn't going to do anything but clog up the courts. I'm guessing that the assholish lawsuits we hear about are a minority, but I don't know that for a fact (not being a lawyer).

Wow, I have never commented, but this review and these comments are pretty shocking. I am a physician, and unless I missed a comment, none of the other commentators are, yet are making generalizations about medicine. Actually, it seems like most of the comments have been by lawyers, so these responses really aren't that shocking. Doctor's get hit with so many frivolous lawsuits. Every time this happens, the doctor has to take weeks out of his schedule to meet with lawyers, for depositions, etc. This is time away from his practice. If it ends up going to court, and the doctor wins. None of his court costs are recouped, all the time he lost he can't gain back. As a result, most end up settling to avoid this hassle. Every time this happens, insurance premiums go up and there will always be a black mark on the physician that he was sued.
Often when we see a patient, we can make a diagnosis based on the history and physical alone. There are however "zebras" which are unusual cases and unusual presentations that can get missed. When these cases get missed, is when many doctors get sued. As a result, a whole mess of labs and imaging studies are ordered. I don't see a penny of those dollars, because I cannot own an imaging center or laboratory. All these costs then get passed on to the patient, either directly, or via their insurance company.
The best solution would be to counter BS lawsuits. If the plaintiff were responsible for the physicians court costs in these cases, it would help prevent a lot of lawsuits.
There are definitely cases of negligence, and in these cases, the patient should get what is owed. In terms of punitive damages, however, it is hard to determine what is appropriate.

"Tort reform" is one of those political over-abstractions that can mean nearly anything. The antidote is to read Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" then look for the real issue behind the noise.

The world is an imperfect place. Screws fall out all the time. We'd like to be made whole when infrequent, big, bad stuff happens even when it isn't really anybody's fault. "Torts" are defined as intentional or negligent harm - somebody's fault. "Torts" don't really fit for "shit happens, let's clean up and move on."

So, what would happen if we tried to deal with making people whole when shit happens for no good reason? Not "torts" - neither intentional, nor negligent harm, but harm because, well, shit happens.

How do we make people whole when the little risks we take all the time, occasionally hurt bad? That's what we really want, isn't it? Sure, somebody makes arsenic chew-toys, sue their brains out.

I have a lovely half-written thought experiment illustrating this, but it's after 02:00 and I have to be up in the morning.

I chose to read Pajiba. You wrote this stuff. I got sucked-in and will be foggy and stupid in the morning because I was up too late doing this.

Since all we have is tort law to work with, you'll be hearing from my lawyer.

Not to detract from the points made in this review and comments, but I too am struggling to believe that those are the legs of an 80-year-old.

"And samantha, I am sorry you get sued a lot, which increases your insurance premiums, and thus your overhead, which decreases the money available to give raises to your employees, or the ability to pay for their health insurance.

I assume that these lawsuits are all valid and you really do suck as an attorney. But you are indifferent to these lawsuits because sucking as an attorney is the costs of you doing business, and its more cost-effective to run a mill than provide proper legal representation.

I'm sorry. That was your point, right?"

Okay, so lawsuits against physicians are frivolous but those against attorneys are valid? Got it. Listen, I speak in hyperbole: we don't get sued every day. We do good work and are compensated pretty well, actually (as is the staff). Those familiar with different areas of law know full well, however, that those practicing family law (and criminal law and other prosaic areas of law) are far more likely to get sued for malpractice/grieved to the bar than, say, securities litigators or tax lawyers. Part of it is because the stakes are extremely high - you lose custody of your child, guess who you're going to blame, regardless of the facts? It's like being an O.B. You could have the best matrimonial attorney in the world and "lose" your case (a whole other issue specific to family law - what's perceived as a loss by a client could, in fact, be a huge victory given the facts, which is cold comfort to somebody who is devastated by a decision). Also, you're often dealing with relatively unsophisticated people who have nothing to lose and everything to gain from suing you, unlike firms representing entities who have far more to risk in suing their defense (or even plaintiff's) counsel. Entities are in court all the time and know how the law works, your typical person in a divorce doesn't.

Long way of saying that if you want to be insulated from this kind of stuff you shouldn't enter professions where you're highly likely to get sued. I'm not cavalier about being sued at all, but I certainly don't bill my clients out the ass and do tons of unnecessary work to avoid the potential of a lawsuit later. I simply don't buy the premise that doctors "have to" do unnecessary MRIs, surgery, etc. because of the threat of a lawsuit. It would be unethical for me to practice my trade that way, I know that much.

"" Doctor's get hit with so many frivolous lawsuits. Every time this happens, the doctor has to take weeks out of his schedule to meet with lawyers, for depositions, etc. This is time away from his practice. If it ends up going to court, and the doctor wins."

And as to physician depositions, testimony, etc., in my experience, any case that gets that far is not frivolous. Baseless cases will typically not make it past a motion to dismiss. A physician prevailing at trial doesn't mean the case was frivolous, it means the plaintiff didn't meet the legal standard, which can be a profoundly close call.

As to being cavalier about lawsuits/my reputation, I received scary, but ultimately sound, advice when I entered this practice: "If you are worried about getting sued or being grieved to the state bar, you are in the wrong field." Period. Anybody practicing in my field, from the fanciest of the fancy to Legal Aid Society attorneys, gets sued, grieved, questioned, etc. It is part of the business and you have to have the fortitude to handle it. As to reputation, because it happens so often it's not really a reputational hit. Also, it is quite difficult for a plaintiff to prevail in a legal malpractice case (just as it is in a medical malpractice case). Because the plaintiff bears such a heavy burden, it's not worth it to panic about lawsuits. They are a pain in the ass and expensive, but it's not end times.

Ah, yes, it's a fine line and that scenario is perfectly legal. That's why larger hospital systems try and buy up smaller practices they see as lucrative, with the implied assumption that the physicians in that practice will automatically refer their patients to their larger hospital system when warrated. There's also nothing illegal about practices purchasing said MRI machines so they can make extra profits, but technically they're still referring in house, not to a separate entity. What I was thinking of are the Stark Self-Referral Laws which state that a physician can't refer Medicare and Medicaid patients to entities where the physician or immediate family member has a financial relationship. But it's all good if you finagle it so everything technically stays in the same "family".

you are so misinformed. Tort reform does not involve depriving brain damaged children of much needed medical care! No, what tort reform does is cap NON-ECONOMIC damages. That means that an injured person's medical bills and out of pocket expenses are paid for, but the amorphous "pain and suffering" damages are capped at a certain REASONABLE amount. There is no reason on this earth that someone should receive millions of dollars in pain and suffering damages!!
of course I say this, but I am a defense attorney - To be fair, I WANT you to keep awarding these exorbitant damages because then both myself and the plaintiff's attorney can make money at the expense of all you jokers who have to cover the cost of increased product cost, increased health care etc.... Just keep lining the pockets of the lawyers (on BOTH sides) and keep telling yourself that it is justice.

Joe, at what point did I say being a doctor was child's play? At what point did I say my profession involved high stakes that medicine didn't?

"And Samantha, you may not believe physicians practice defensive medicine, but it's true."

Oh, I believe it happens. I just believe it's unjustified and unethical.

"Imagine if I said words to the effect that lawyers need to suck it up and get tough and just deal with having to perform triple bypass surgery during a trial. It would be ridiculous on its face."

I'm not asking doctors to be lawyers, I'm asking people supporting tort reform to understand what actually goes on with lawsuits.

"Ha! try watching the light go out of a teenager's eyes because they did something dumb and you can't stop the them from bleeding out fast enough because there are simply too many holes to plug and too little time. Then imagine somebody with no medical training coming in after the fact and trying to pin the death on you (and failing, but trying really, really hard, taking months of your time and calling your professional competence into question in order to do so), then try to sleep at night. Wimps."

Ah, I see the real issue here: how dare anybody question what doctors do? Of course, such lawsuits involve major expert testimony, depositions, etc., so it's not some "wimp" of a lawyer floating in and saying "Hey, Doc, you suck!" and leaving it at that. I have heard great arguments for having med mal-specific juries (I agree many laypeople are poorly-poised to determine a complex med mal case), but I don't think caps or limiting people's recourse to the courts is the answer.

Samantha If you noticed at the beginning of my post, I allowed that access to the courts is very important to our society. I just think that too many really ridiculous suits are allowed to go forward because they aren't "frivolous" even if they are meritless. Too many judges who say that a jury should decide some obvious untruth.

And, yes, it is wimp lawyers coming in and saying "Doc, you suck." Or at least that's been *my* experience. I'll prepared, ill equipped, untrained lawyers doing just that and taking hours and hours and hours in depositions described by their legal peers as "fishing expeditions." The family is understandably brokenhearted at the loss of their child but could not fathom that it was the child's fault, tragically it was. Kids do stupid things sometimes, this one did and the stupidity cost them the ultimate price. Dewey, Cheatham and Howe didn't actually care about the family, they just saw a payday and had a huge, huge financial incentive to either win in court, which they didn't on the facts, or to spin it out long enough to make the malpractice firm settle, which they didn't in this case either. So they lost this on. Still, this and other cases cost millions of dollars and no one walks away a winner except Schyster Sam the scam man. The kid is still dead because of their own misadventure, the family still grieves, and no amount of money makes it better. And the physician is not a better physician nor is the system any better at treating patients.

As for "no one questioning the doctor," you show your ignorance. There's a procedure called M&M (morbidity and mortality.) In this process, tough cases, especially those with poor outcomes, are reviewed by, get this, people who know what they're talking about with the sole purpose to make the practice of medicine better.

Expert testimony is a joke, and if you don't know it you should. You can find an "expert" who will back nearly any ludicrous claim if you pay them enough. They have financial incentives, too, after all, they're paid like consultants from the moment they step on the plan. Look at the vaccine cases arising from the now withdrawn article in The Lancet. Mr Wakefield (he's no longer a physician) has made a mint off his ill begotten, fruadulent study. A study, interestingly, financed in large part by a bunch of English tort lawyers. Real harm has been done by this study, and the barristers (or whatever they're called across the pond) probably see no harm done on their part. They have blood on their hands, too, wimps.

Things that make you go hmmmmmmmm.

Yet, folks keep voting for these people.

*shrugs*

"nations have the government they deserve."

Americans are idiots. Not really news.

And every one of them would sue the shit out of anybody they could if they thought there were enough dollars attached to it. Regardless of how strongly they supposedly feel about "tort reform" or "out of control" jury awards.

A real news flash would be, "Family Has Opportunity to Sue Corporation for Tons of Money, Declines." But you'll never see that, because it'll never happen.

Everybody thinks their case has merit and nobody else's does. The way people always think they're the exception to every rule.

Aw, hell, I didn't even notice this was a repeat from January. Oh well.

As far as the "hot coffee lady" thing goes, I do agree that McDonald's coffee was much too hot, but at the same time I think it is also absolutely ridiculous that she wedged the goddamn coffee cup into her crotch while she was driving. I think both sides were at fault here.

Oh, mercy me, Pajiba has fanned the flames of my passion chord!

We put men on the moon, surely we can work out tort reform.

I don't want my inner-city babes thinking a lawsuit is their ticket outta the ghetto. And yet, I don't want Corporate America thinking it can decimate my sweetie-pies because it is big, rich and powerful.

Yo, doctors and lawyers, can we get our act together (do we need to bring in Andrew Cuomo?) and hammer out an agreement?

Dustin made me realize how serious and important this is. Oh, please, let's follow the Andrew Cuomo modus operandi (outlined in the Sunday NY Times) and let's create something that is landmark. I'm in!

I'm not a spokesperson for McD's by any stretch, but, apparently, they zap everything ultra-hot, so, for those who wait, (unlike me and devour all food fresh outta the bag) until they get home, the food is somewhat warm.

I had a shitty boyfriend who, for the few months he was "mine," used to make me wait UNTIL we GOT HOME, to eat our Mickey D's take-out. He was such an asshole.

Wow. That felt really good to get off my chest.

I'll pitch in here- I'm not a doctor, just a lowly paramedic, but I can tell you that the reality of Emergency Care centers around making your patients happy because the hospitals are being run like a business. You're patients are to be seen as "customers" and treated as such. If someone shows up to the ER and demands a certain test, you give it to them. And yes, there are multiple expensive diagnostics run on patients as a cover-your-ass measure because people are scared of malpractice suits. And "getting sued is not the end of the world" is BULLSHIT as far as medicine is concerned because if you have more than about 8 malpractice suits in your CAREER as an emergency MD you're damn near unemployable.

Even what I do on the ambulance is subject to overlitigation. To the point that if a patient asks for an IV and fluid (which they do because why trust the paramedic when you've got WebMD) I have to give it to them, which costs money. And on top of that, every time I do an advanced skill it opens us up to litigation. I know paramedics that avoid doing advanced skills, like intubation, because they don't want to open themselves up to legal problems. That's a culture of fear, and it does nobody any good.

I'm a lawyer, and a leftie, and a fan of tort reform. A fan of certain kinds of tort reform, I should say--because yes, some of it is just big business trying to duck responsibility for things it ought to pay for.

Look, in theory, we should be able to settle on legal rules and then trust juries to follow them and give out reasonable awards. But all of the people on this thread screaming about how lawyers are crooks and everyone needs to stop looking for someone to blame when an accident happens? I guarantee you that 90% of you, if put on a jury in a personal injury case, would change your tune. You would listen to the days and days of graphic testimony about the paralyzed plaintiff and his surgeries and the pain and how the guy's wife and kids moved out when he got depressed and how he went from being an active guy with a decent job who played baseball with his kids to someone who stares at walls for 6 hours a day because he has bedsores and can't sit up and how he has to self-catheterize 3 times a day and how he spends 45 minutes every morning wiggling his finger up his ass to have a bowel movement and how all the company needed to do was put a little warning label on the product and it wouldn't have cost them a thing and now this guy's entire life has been destroyed and all he wants is the money to pay for his surgeries and his lost wages and to put in a ramp so he can wheel himself into his house.

And when you hear all that, it doesn't matter to you so much whether the little label would have actually prevented the accident, or whether the guy should have known better on his own, or whether the company actually did anything wrong. They're a big company, and you know they can afford it, and this guy literally cannot live without the money.

It's completely understandable, and it's the reason I support a no-fault system for personal injury cases -- because regardless of whose fault it is, the guy should have what he needs to live. And no-fault systems, despite paying out awards to everyone, actually cost less because of the savings from not having to fight about whether someone has to pay. But since that's never going to happen in America (woo, principled stances that make everyone worse off!), I support some kinds of tort reform. Because take the above scenario, and add in a company who is a little bit at fault, and then ask a jury to make a rational judgment about how much to punish the company.

(And yeah, I think the McDonalds case was totally valid. That case is the reason that punitive damages exist -- you can argue about whether they should go to the plaintiff or to the state, but a company that ignores warnings about a dangerous and fixable condition is sort of the exact reason why punitive damages exist. And the fact that the judge reduced the award to a reasonable level is a perfect demonstration of how limits on juries can and should work.)

Mr. Socrates-Johnson (I'm on an iPad and many functions, such as underscoring, are lost to me) Thank you for understanding my plight. (And arentcha glad I didn't call you "Soc"?) I have to say, some movements come from the ground up.

I just have to "put it out there" and wonder, if this "Sue for the gold" mentality weren't derived from a specificic group of vulnerable people, who were trained (via multimedia) to think that a lawsuit of any kind might be their ticket outta poverty, what might be the result?

There are far too many ambulance-chaser attorneys in my own small city, that have built an empire on the feelings of the wronged, impoverished citizen. Unfortunately, they have a LOT of money to advertise, and they do not hesitate to do so. (Jeez, my cat has plunked his butt down next to me and he is licking it so loudly that I can't think straight!) Anyway, what I was saying, shit, lost my train of thought...

OK, too many people on the lowest-level of tort reform are selling their souls "to the devil" because an ad on TV told them to do it. And this is where the attorneys are raking in their money. And THAT'S why I object. Yeah, each, individual lawsuit is peanuts, but, when you compile ALL of the idiotic suits together, they make one helluva lucrative practice for an asshole attorney. These guys wouldn't be able to continue their practice if it weren't for the deluded, impoverished individual.

I saw this earlier tonight. I makes you think a lot about the media and how they help to sell lies and misconceptions. There should be a seperate documentary made on how the media manages to spin events I saw my local newspaper do something similar a few years back. As a result, a local politician blew his brains out in front of their building shortly afterward.

Excellent points Artemis. I do think 'no fault' legal can happen in America, mostly because 'no fault' auto insurance is gaining steam. Florida has had it for years and I do think it's a better situation for most, as the lawsuits that arise after accidents are between the two insurance companies and their well-paid legal staffs and not between well-paid corporate staffs and not so well paid 'consumer' lawyers.

I also think it's interesting that most ignore the fact that the final settlement was reduced well below the much-hyped 'payday' granny is touted as receiving. In addition, I think it's important to point out that the plaintiff doesn't set the amount she is awarded, the jury does. Her attorneys may ask for an amount, I confess I don't know, but the award is set by the jury, not the plaintiff.

I loath to mention this because I know this will result in people getting heated about this but someone mentioned the insurance industry and I used to work in it. No one likes us. Its easy to hate those big bad companies who take your money and then deny your claim. Like a lawyer, everyone hates insurance people until they need them.

I can't tell you the number of times that people would ask how to commit insurance fraud directly to my face (risking my license), screaming at me that I personally am denying their claim, or intentionally lied to me and acted shocked that a company would actual work to prevent fraud.

Hey flood victims...FLOODING ISN'T COVERED BY HOMEOWNERS! It is the first thing explained to you when you purchase the policy. Its common sense that when you lived in a goddamn flood zone, you need to purchase flood insurance. Even in a hurricane, and wind dammage is covered by homeowners...when your house is totaled by the flood waters...IT's FLOOD DAMAGE and not covered.

An insurance agent can't force people to pay attention or learn about their policies. All we can do is attempt to advice them. If they chose to ignore us, I'm not sure what people expect.

Its statistics people...the entire system is based on statistics. You want to live in a modern society...you need insurance. You want to be a dumbass (say ignoring a small roof leak for months until the entire structure fails), then you are only screwing yourself. Insurance doesn't cover stupidity. If it did, it would be even more expensive.

I kinda liken it to the same argument I have about welfare. You always get those dumbass hardheads who throw the welfare baby shit in your face. You know, the fat, inner city waste of skin who keeps having babies so she can get mo' money?

The truth is that people like that do exist, just like people who want a payday from a lawsuit, BUT... that system of welfare and legal recourse are both there for YOU. They are there for a reason, and the fact that some people abuse those systems is not a reason to take those systems away from you or me.

Those whiny bitches will be the first to change their minds when something bad happens to them just like those women who scream and vilify abortion until they desperately need one.

Unless your a trust fund baby or independently wealthy, nearly every one of us is one or two paychecks from homelessness. One catastrophic illness away from destitution and life and death decisions.

I am one of those people. I am on "welfare" right now. Technically AHCCCS, Arizona's version of welfare/medicare. I get food stamps (which aren't stamps anymore, just a fancy debit card), I don't get economic assistance because I don't have a child dependent. I'm not sure how the fuck that works. I guess since I'm not a child it's assumed all I need is food and not really a place to live or clothes or gas for the car.

I don't live in the inner city. I'm a middle aged white guy with a great family and one daughter in college. I have cancer. My rent is paid for by donations to fundraisers started by friends and my manager at the place I used to work at before I couldn't drive for them any longer. It's paid for by the back child support I had to take my ex-wife to court to get. The rest is paid for by my father and mother - out of their retirement.

I can't help but think that the reason I don't get economic assistance is because some hard-head assholes pushed the system out that used to provide that. Because you know, the only people getting assistance are low-life losers who just need to man up and get a fucking job, right?

Whether you think this woman was at fault herself or McDonald's, that system of recourse through the courts is there for YOU and me. The abuse that absolutely happens is there and THAT is what needs reform, not how much assistance people get, there ability to get recompense for wrong or the ability to access all these services in the event they are NEEDED, and they are needed. By you, most likely, in your very near fucking future. So think before you shoot down any of these systems altogether. Think beyond your own narrow world view filled with bullshit cliche throwaway hard-ass cynicism. Like I always say - get some real goddamn perspective. You don't know the whole story - ever, until you live it.