|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Friday, November 01, 2002Goodman's bill would cap pain and suffering jury awards at $300,000 and limit how much plaintiff's attorneys can collect for representing victims. A more comprehensive tort reform bill, containing similar measures, was enacted in 1997 but was struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court in 1999. There were some counter-protesters there - trial lawyers and a few of their clients. They typically tried to take the focus away from limiting their financial rewards and framed it as an issue of patient rights: "No matter what name it's given, this bill is nothing more than an immunity bill for doctors and a cash cow for the insurance industry," said John A. Lancione, who recently represented a Cleveland-area family in a malpractice suit against a Marion doctor. It isn't an "immunity" bill. Patients who believe they were wronged would still have the right to sue, and still be able to collect unlimited economic damages. What they won't be able to do is collect unbounded sympathy money in the form of "pain and suffering". And what lawyers won't be able to do is milk that sympathy for their own financial benefit. posted by Sydney on 11/01/2002 07:34:00 AM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
