Wisconsin Woman Challenges Cap on Malpractice Damages

July 30, 2013

  • July 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    Al Brumbaugh says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 11

    It has been my thought that all these medical cap laws are unconstitutional as they favor the medical community over the public’s best interest. It is what it is should be the rule and State Legislatures, no matter what good was intended, should not interfere with civil court judgements.

  • July 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    Scott says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 12
    Thumb down 4

    Ahhh, yes: the “concerned” attorney……….

  • July 30, 2013 at 2:15 pm
    huh! says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 21
    Thumb down 1

    So we base our choice of doctors and treatment on how much money we can get if they make a mistake? Perhaps $250,000 is no longer a reasonable cap, but there should definitely be limitations in place. We have enough trouble with people who think with their pocketbooks; we certainly don’t need more of the same.

    • July 30, 2013 at 11:28 pm
      Al Brumbaugh says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 7

      SEE MY REMARKS BELOW AND GET BACK TO ME. IF THIS HAPPENED TO YOUR FAMILY WHERE WOULD THAT LEAVE THEM? 250K IS CHICKEN FEED FOR YOUNG FAMILIES OR THOSE WIDOWS LESS THAN 70 YEARS OLD.

      • July 31, 2013 at 11:30 am
        jw says:
        Like or Dislike:
        Thumb up 4
        Thumb down 0

        Do not type in all caps. Tres gouche.

  • July 30, 2013 at 5:19 pm
    InsGuy says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 6
    Thumb down 2

    Huh! Being conservative, I tend to agree that people think with their pocketbooks. What really, is the point of caps though when you think about it.

    Many states require policy language to exclude coverage for punitive damages. That makes more sense to me to put the tortfeasor in front of the collector instead of his insurance carrier.

    Or maybe, licensee sanction is a better tool than monetary awards. I’m not sure what the correct answer is, but I am getting sick & tired of hearing about huge awards against these guys (that their insurance pays for), but they continue on with little or no reprecussion.

    For this one case in particular, isn’t the UW in this case a state college funded, in part, by tax-payor dollars? If that’s the case, I think she’s lucky to be getting anything given immunity laws.

  • July 30, 2013 at 11:22 pm
    Al Brumbaugh says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 3
    Thumb down 7

    LET’S SAY A 40 YEAR OLD SURGEON IS WALKING ACROSS A STREET IN A CROSS WALK AND RUN OVER BY A COLA-COLA TRUCK. THE FACTS PRESENTED TO THE JURY CLEARLY SHOW THE DRIVER IS AT FAULT. THE SURGEON HAS 4 KIDS, A WIFE AND A PROJECTED INCOME DURING THE NEXT 30 YEARS OF $4.0M OR AN ECONOMIC LOSS OF $120,000,000. THE JURY AWARDS A JUDGEMENT OF $200,000,000 FOR LOST OF INCOME AND LOST OF A LOVE ONE. WE WOULD ALL AGREE THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE AMOUNT CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OR SOMEWHERE IN THAT AREA. THE SAME SURGEON IS KILLED BY A DOCTOR ON THE OPERATING TABLE DUE TO A TERRIBLE DECISION BY THE THE OPERATING DOCTOR. NOW THE FAMILY WILL RECEIVE ONLY THE AMOUNT ALLOWED BY THE MEDICAL CAP OF THE STATE USUALLY LESS THAN $1M. HOW IS THAT JUSTICE OR MAKING WHOLE THE FAMILY’S LOSS?

  • July 31, 2013 at 10:40 am
    InsGuy says:
    Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 10
    Thumb down 0

    You presume to tell everyone that they would agree that $200M is reasonable. I modify Scott’s response above, “Ahhh, yes: the “presumptious arrogant a@#” attorney……….”

    Considering no one will likely offer that kind of limit, I’m sure they would go get an “presumptuous arrogant a@@” bankruptcy attorney and give you the raspberries.

  • July 31, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    perplexed says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 2
    Thumb down 0

    Could someone in Wisconsin please clarify: Is the “cap” at issue a global cap for all damages? Or is it only for subjective, non-economic damages? The difference is huge, but unfortunately the article doesn’t make it clear.

    • July 31, 2013 at 3:58 pm
      InsGuy says:
      Like or Dislike:
      Thumb up 2
      Thumb down 0

      Your right it wasn’t specific, I guess I assumed to be on non-economic. It also said there’s normally no cap, but applies in this case since it’s the U/W. Possibly this is the gov’t immunity/liability limit, since they’re likely part of the state college system. give it a day or two, someone will chime in who’s familiar with the specifics.

  • August 5, 2013 at 4:27 pm
    No Doubt says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 1
    Thumb down 0

    If I recall, caps came into being because doctors couldn’t buy or afford malpractice. Insurance carriers couldn’t price it as juries would base their decisions on emotions over facts-not too disimilar from @ Al Brumbaugh in his posts. I may be old, but it wasn’t unusual for a juror to comment on how it was to “make the insurance companies pay” for some real or imagined personal slight in the past or the disconnect between how a high malpractice award led to higher costs of providing medical services to those who sought them or a reduction in the number of practicing physicians.
    In an ideal world, eliminating punitives from insurance carrier payouts would be great-so would a “no fault” compensation fund along the lines of WC, but I’m not certain that is realistic.



Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

More News
More News Features