TorteDeForm

Justinian Lane

And I thought medmal insurers needed tort "reform" to stay in business!

Actually, I didn't.  And here's more proof they don't.

"Today's ruling hasn't changed our decision to be a major player in Illinois for years to come," Sheldon Davidow, President of Medicus said. "Although Medicus is a strong supporter of tort reform, we entered the market after a thorough examination of the entire business climate and chose to write policies with or without tort reform. Our decision is irrevocable, and we will continue to work hard in growing our company."

New Med Mal Insurance Company Medicus to Stay in Illinois - Press Release

Remember this the next time you're told that insurers will leave or not come to your state unless legislation is passed to protect incompetent doctors.

Justinian Lane: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 7:55 PM, Nov 13, 2007 in Insurance Industry | Medical Malpractice
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

Justinian: Are you back to stay here or something? Are you otherwise employed? Bring us up to date. We care about you.

"...to protect incompetent doctors."

No. To protect entirely innocent doctors, put through the legal wringer without any basis in fact or in law.

About 80% of cases are weak. They are dropped without payment. If they go to trial, the verdict favors the doctor in 80% of cases. Even in a judicial hellholes, the verdict favors the doctor 70% of the time.

That failure rate is itself a mass tort by the plaintiff bar. That group of tortfeasors owes the doctors of this nation about a $trillion in special damages.

Kia supports allowing legal malpractice claims by adverse third parties. She is fair.

Why don't you say one or the other whether you do? Right here, right now. Yes or no?

If do not support the regulation of the lawyer by the jury, shut your left wing, hypocritical, land pirate, lyin' mouth, permanently. Don't be like Erik.

Let's say, you do support the regulation of the careless lawyer by the jury. Then explain how the filing of weak cases at a rate of 80%, year after dreary decade, is not legal malpractice on a mass scale.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | November 13, 2007 11:29 PM

What are these "weak cases" of which you speak, SC?

Do you mean, for example, the growing docket of corporation v. corporation or corporation v. government cases that are basically just business strategies for stalling and blocking competition, but which involve no legitimate legal issues?

The real challenge of "reforming" the legal system so that it is more open and accessible to valid claims of real people is to eliminate corporations' abuse of the civil justice system.

Posted by: Kia Franklin | November 14, 2007 11:57 PM

Supremacy Claus - I didn't know you cared! My hiatus was due to the combination of the class load of a 1L and the schedule of practicing for an ABA arbitration competition. The former wasn't so bad, but the latter added about 20 hours a week of additional commitments, and I just didn't have the time to post. I imagine I'll disappear again during finals, but I'll try and be fairly regular from now on.

With respect to your determination that 80% of cases are dropped/settled or are otherwise weak: It's impossible to know if a case is a "winner" until a judge or jury rules in your favor. How exactly do you propose to make that determination beforehand?

Posted by: Justinian Lane | November 15, 2007 2:04 PM