Supreme Court Declines to Hear Military Medical Liability Case

By | June 30, 2011

  • June 30, 2011 at 10:58 am
    Joe K. says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    It will never get overturned i fit means costing the Federal government money.
    I think it is wrong to assume that if this overturned the quality of care will be better because they are open to be sued. for every bad outcome that we read about their are thousands of good outcomes as the result of excellent care. I do agree that the families of bad outcome should be compensated.

  • June 30, 2011 at 1:54 pm
    reality bites says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    There are two aspects to consider – a) battlefield treatment and other emergency-related evacuation assistance, and b) routine, traditional hospital services provided to veterans and non-combatants.

    I think we all agree that there should be no liability arising out of a). Best reasonable prudent care etc.

    But as for b) – the VA provides the closest equivalent to a socialized hospital system in the US, where care is given to qualified individuals. The cost structure may be different, but the services are similar or the same to what an individual can receive from a ‘regular’ hospital, whether for-profit, NFP, etc.

    There is little reason why the expectation of outcome would be different between the VA and other providers. Why should there be a wall to hide behind when their erstwhile competitors are legally responsible for inadvertent mistakes or errors? Do I stand a better chance of a complete recovery, no side effects etc if I pay more for non-VA treatment? Does the increased cost cover the malpractice premiums?

    Perhaps the VA should split itself between a) and b), charge more for the latter, and stand behind their work, instead of behind protective statutes and legislations.

  • June 30, 2011 at 2:03 pm
    Lauren CIC ARM says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    “Republican lawmakers derided the measure, saying that opening up the military to lawsuits would be expensive and benefit trial lawyers more than service families.” I agree, so they should implement mandatory mediation so families are compensated when true negligence exists.

  • June 30, 2011 at 3:59 pm
    Mike N says:
    Like or Dislike:
    Thumb up 0
    Thumb down 0

    I wonder if the lawyers working on this case, who decry the outcome, are working for free, out of the goodness of their hearts. I find that consideration highly unlikely. If these lawyers aren’t working pro bono they prove the point more money would be going to lawyers than patients and families. The only reason these lawyers are involved is because they know, should this law be overturned, lawsuits will be raining down money like a longshot hit at the slot machine.

    Let’s think this through:

    – There is one party that is absolutely beholden to the trial bar.
    – This one party would then be on the other end of the pretrial “negotiations” (wink, wink) and any settlements to avoid trial.
    – This party then sits across the negotiating table with one of its largest contributors, obviously pays out huge settlement sums to avoid even larger trial costs, and their primary contributors (outside of unions) then get paid handsomely.
    – The trial bar then recycles the moeny back into the pockets of the democrat party.
    – The only people who pay are American taxpayers, whom the democrat party already screws every single day.

    Essentially, this is the exact same things that went on with Wisconsin public employee unions. Unions “negotiate” (wink, wink) with democrat party members, who give the unions more money, which they funnel right back into democrat party coffers.

    In other words: THIS IS YET ANOTHER SCAM ORCHESTRATED BY THE DEMOCRAT PARTY TO SCREW THE AMERICAN TAXPAYER. Period. They could give a crap about those who serve our country in the military.

Add a Comment

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