|
|
|
Letters to Newsweek Readers Respond to "Lawsuit Hell"
Newsweek, December 22, 2003 The following letters in response to Newsweek's December 8, 2003, cover story,
"Lawsuit Hell: How Fear of Litigation Is Paralyzing Our Professions," were published by Newsweek:
Americans should be aware that "lawsuit hell" doesn't just affect those who are
sued--excessive lawsuits and fear of litigation impacts the daily life of every
citizen. A recent study estimates that every U.S. citizen spends an extra $721
per year to cover the cost of lawsuits. But we each lose more than money to lawsuit
abuse. Accessible, affordable health care disappears as doctors curb or shutter
their practices. Potentially life-saving drugs are kept off the market because
pharmaceutical companies curtail research. And when new medications are approved,
doctors hesitate to prescribe them. Small-business owners fear that one claim,
even the wackiest of lawsuits, could drive them out of business and throw their
employees out of work. Employees--if they aren't concerned about possibly losing
their jobs--fear their health insurance benefits will disappear, shrink or require
them to pick up more of the cost. While legislation has offered some relief to
the abuse of our civil-justice system, true reform won't happen until people start
taking personal responsibility for their actions and stop using lawsuits as a
way to solve every problem.
Bill Summers, President
Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse
Weslaco, Texas
As an attorney with over 25 years experience--which, except for a stint in the
Navy, has been spent representing individuals and business--it has seemed to me
for some time that the problems with our civil litigation system will not be cured
by caps on damages (which can wrongfully penalize injured parties) or limitations
on legal fees (which can deprive injured parties from obtaining quality counsel).
Conventional tort reform doesn't really go to the deeper problem--that a plaintiff
has nothing to lose and therefore needs not be accountable for his or her actions.
The only way our system can be effectively reformed is to adopt the system generally
prevailing in other common-law counties: make the losing side responsible for
payment of the legal fees and other costs of litigation of the prevailing party.
Many individuals who would otherwise "roll the dice" and bring a frivolous or
poorlyfounded law suit or claim in an administrative agency will think twice if
they understand that if they lose--the doctor, school or other party being sued
will be entitled to obtain a judgment against them for the costs of defense.
Scott H. Schley, General Counsel & Secretary
Maher Terminals Inc.
Berkeley Heights, N.J.
I was recently called for jury duty in the civil court. During voir dire I was
asked about large malpractice awards. I said that plaintiffs generally ask for
entirely too much so as to pay the massive contingency fees of their attorneys.
I was told to leave before I even got to sit back down.
James F. Cataldi
McGees Rocks, Pa.
I am an elementary school librarian and I had to cover the word "hell" on the
front of your magazine with a sticker in fear of offending and possible litigation!
How true that we are becoming a sue-happy nation. Keep up the good and sometimes
unintentional humorous job you do.
Frank Tigner
Mountain View Elementary School
Manchester, Ga.
I teach torts law and find your attack on the jury system unconscionable. Juries
more often than not get it right. The jury may be the only remaining venue in
our nation where the common person can take on monied interests on a level playing
field because of real wrongs suffered. The suggestion that a special court of
judges with medical and legal expertise should decide whether medical negligence
has occurred, as opposed to juries, is laughable. Did you know that in Texas,
where a sweeping pro-defendant tort-reform bill was just enacted, not a single
doctor lost his or her medical license due to medical errors from 1997-2002? This,
despite the fact that 6.5 percent of Texas doctors account for more than 50 percent
of medical malpractice payments(National Practitioner Data Bank). Largely because
the medical profession won't police its own, medical malpractice rates have gone
up for all doctors.
Prof. Melissa Essary
Baylor University School of Law
Waco, Texas
When will the madness end, America? The surgeon who saved my life 13 years ago
just informed me in a follow-up visit to another operation, that he may have to
move out of state because he can't afford to practice in Connecticut anymore.
His malpractice insurance is increasing almost twofold from last year. Our community
may lose this good doctor because of the greedy among us. When are we going to
demand our politicians limit these unjustified lawsuits that will surely cause
pain and suffering when doctors can no longer afford to practice?
Heather Woiciechowski
Plantsville, Conn.
If you were the parent of a child born with severe brain damage you would feel
differently about the need for lawsuits and ample settlements. My daughter suffers
from cerebral palsy, periventricular leukomalcia and severe, life-threatening
seizures because of a clinic and doctor's decision to use a non-FDA approved drug.
My daughter's life has been robbed from her and ours has, too.
Name Withheld
East Texas, Texas
Stuart Taylor Jr. is presented as the main reporter of your article "Civil Wars."
In fact, he is a professional editorial proponent of dismembering the civil-justice
system and its hallmark trial by jury. This bias isa secret to your readers. By
failing to inform them of Taylor's agenda where it counts--in the context of the
article--and by presenting his radical views as journalism that hews to the accepted
standards of objectivity and fairness, you do your readers, the good name of your
magazine and the profession of journalism a grave injustice. This is not a trivial
matter. Our civil-justice system is American bedrock--not perfect, but bedrock,
full of legal protections that put justice in the hands of the people. It has
served our nation faithfully and well for over 200 years, and is justifiably the
envy of people throughout the world. Any discussion of radical changes should
be careful, reasoned and many-sided. I direct your readers to the Website of the
Association of Trial Lawyers of America, www.atla.org, to find a point-by-point correction and clarification of the half-truths and
misinformation in your coverage.
David S. Casey, Jr., President
Association of Trial Lawyers of America
Washington, D.C.
* * *
Editor's Note
NEWSWEEK received a large volume of mail from trial lawyers critical of our cover
story. We stand by the story as both accurate and fair. The criticisms are for
the most part easily refuted with material In the public record. Example: we reported
that in Kentucky, a mother sued her daughter's school after the girl had performed
oral sex on a boy during a schoolbus ride returning from a marching-band contest.
The woman blamed poor adult supervision, saying her daughter had been forced.
The Association of Trial Lawyers of America challenged this reporting, citing
an article in the Lexington Herald Leader that, ATLA claimed, reported that the
Board of Education ruled that the act was forced and that the girl had been sexually
assaulted. The article, in fact, merely reported the lawsuit's claim that the
school board had ruled the act was forced. The board denied in court papers having
made such a determination. It also denied that the girl had been sexually assaulted.
One point challenged in the article merits clarification. We reported that a
jury delivered a $70 million malpractice judgment against Stanford University's
hospital. Under a California law permitting payment of such awards in periodic
installments, a judge could allow the defendants to satisfy that judgment by putting
aside a much lesser amount (probably between $5-8 million) now. No such determination
has yet been made; even if that happens, the plaintiff is still to be paid $70
million over time. | |
