Consumers caught in crossfire of lawsuits

[Guest guest]

http://www.zwire.com/site/News.cfm?BRD=1424 & dept_id=186293 & newsid=5693873 & PA

G=461 & rfi=9

Consumers caught in crossfire of lawsuits

W. Weekly , Columnist 10/13/2002

Whether it's a crack in a city sidewalk or a trace of beef in a fast food

french fry, eventually there will be a lawsuit. Win or lose, we, the people,

are the ones who will ultimately pay.

Welcome to the no-man's land where most consumers live. It is a pockmarked

battleground squarely between insurance companies on one side and ever more

inventive plaintiff lawyers on the other.

Everyone agrees that when a wrong is done, the harmed should be compensated

by those found to be responsible. Unfortunately, the system of civil justice

that is supposed to make sure that the harmed are made whole has flaws.

Compensation too often far exceeds all limits of common sense; theories of

damages under the law have become more and more farfetched; and settlements

reached and judgments rendered almost always eventually come out of our own

pockets.

Who would disagree that people harmed by their doctors should be

compensated? But for every 100 doctors in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, there

are 350 medical malpractice claims filed. Most of these lawsuits fail, but

every legal defense costs thousands of dollars.

Who pays? We do. First the doctors are hit with malpractice premium rate

hikes of 100 percent and more. These higher costs then cause consumer health

insurance rates to dramatically escalate. Employers then scale back health

coverage.

Consumer groups, who take funding from trial lawyers, simply blame insurance

companies who, they say, want to gouge doctors because these companies have

lost money in the stock market. But 14 of 17 malpractice underwriters have

left Texas in the last two years because they can't raise rates fast enough

to keep up with the litigation costs. It's pretty tough to gouge if you

aren't writing policies, so this explanation just doesn't hold up.

Four years ago, lawsuits alleging harm from mold were virtually non-existent

in Texas. In the last two years, however, Texas has seen 40,000 insurance

claims for " toxic " mold. Yet internationally respected experts in immunology

and microbiology say that the public hysteria manufactured over mold has

absolutely no foundation in medical science. These facts have not stopped

lawsuits claiming memory loss and neurological damage. For consumers it is

an expensive hoax; insurance rates have doubled for many homeowners.

After a $32 million " toxic " mold judgment, the ruse swung into high gear.

Pictures of mold remediators in environmental " moon suits " inspired

thousands of others to seek relief from the supposedly dangerous mold in

their homes. Meanwhile, continuing legal education courses are offered on

how to best sue on behalf of clients with mold in their homes. Some dubbed

it, " mold for gold. "

Responsible nursing homes have been in the news lately saying that they are

one lawsuit away from bankruptcy because they can no longer afford their

malpractice insurance. A nursing home reform law with the completely

justifiable purpose of punishing those who were responsible for poor

conditions and inadequate care was recently enacted. But built into that

reform were plaintiff lawyer-designed elements that created an open season

on all nursing homes.

With insurance companies on one side and plaintiff lawyers on the other

side, some Texas physicians have decided that their profession has become

impractical and they are taking early retirement. Many long-term care nurses

are fleeing a profession they now see as too risky. For consumers in many

counties in Texas, having a baby delivered or finding affordable homeowners

insurance is becoming increasingly difficult.

As consumers, we can be grimly amused with stories of lawsuits against fast

food companies on behalf of clients who didn't know that eating a lot of

double cheeseburgers might make them fat. We can watch while billions of

dollars of state tax revenues evaporate into higher and higher health

insurance costs. Or, we can tackle the flaws in our civil justice system,

which are costing us so much money.

As a lawsuit reform group, we believe that compensation for " economic "

damages should not be limited but that highly subjective " non-economic "

damages in medical malpractice cases should be capped at a reasonable level.

California enacted such a solution in 1975 and medical malpractice rates

there have remained stable and below the national average ever since. There

are other solutions to this death-by-lawsuit spiral in which we find

ourselves that can go a long way toward restoring a measure of common sense

to our civil justice system.

We are developing, for example, legislation that would discourage those who

think of a lawsuit as a lottery ticket by encouraging parties in litigation

to reach realistic and reasonable settlements early in the process. Also

important is the recognition by those serving on civil juries that lawsuits

should make a harmed party whole, not an overnight millionaire.

Our efforts to win fair changes in our system have not stopped lawsuits, nor

should they. But until the public itself takes a stand for a civil justice

system driven more by justice than by greed, we can all expect to pay more

from the middle of the battlefield.

©ville Leader 2002