Tort Reform

Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform." You know the argument: Disgruntled patients, goaded on by unscrupulous lawyers, file frivolous malpractice lawsuits and walk off with millions of dollars in undeserved awards granted by teary-eyed jurors. Doctors respond by practicing "defensive medicine," ordering lots of unnecessary tests to cover their behinds. Bingo! Medical costs hit the stratosphere.

Our Oscar parties invariably go like this: First hour: Rapt attention. We are like the front pew at Easter, hanging on every word, nodding at the appropriate moment. Happy to be in God's lap. Second hour: Digestion kicks in. Comments grow increasingly snarky. Meanwhile, the dog is on the coffee table, licking at the shrimp plate. Who cares? Third hour: Everyone is asleep Fourth hour: Some in-law calls to find out what the kids want for Christmas. "IT'S BARELY MARCH, MOM!

If the "tort reforms" of House Speaker Newt Gingrich and his band of merry men become law, we can at least all hope that our mothers, brothers, sons and daughters are not hospitalized next month, next year or ever. Hope they never fall victim to the negligent acts of "professionals"; never are maimed by defective products promoted for profit by corporations. Reality: $250,000 will not go far for the lifetime care of the paralyzed or brain-injured. So if a loved one is victimized, after the $250,000 is gone, after your insurance runs out, after you sell or over-mortgage your house, hope at least for state welfare care.

Re: Michael Hiltzik's business column "Why tort reform is a frivolous diversion," Oct. 1: Preventable medical errors kill nearly 100,000 people a year. Precious few injured patients ever file a lawsuit or recover a dime for their injuries. If the goal is fewer lawsuits, it should be achieved by increasing the quality of medicine practiced in this country. Unfortunately, doctors and hospitals generally resist changes that have been proven to make medical care safer, preferring to demonize lawyers.

I would like to commend Robin Abcarian for her column about the pending legislation that will protect Nevada's gaming interests while sacrificing the safety of consumers and tourists, the very people who make gambling such a profitable industry ("Balancing Safety and the Bottom Line in Nevada" (June 7). It is a particularly appropriate time to expose this cynical attempt to insulate powerful corporations and insurance companies from the consequences of their actions when someone is seriously or permanently injured as a result of irresponsible actions and the negligence of their employees.

Re "Even the Odious Have Legal Rights," Commentary, March 30: Thank you, Andres Martinez, for the common-sense article about our judicial system. As a liberal who has long been a proponent of tort reform, I am embarrassed that the left turns a blind eye to the immorality of the legal system in much the same way that the right does with big business. James L. Hardeman Fullerton Martinez presents a good argument on why fixing the legal system is so important. The class-action system was established so that groups of injured or harmed plaintiffs could pool their resources under one lawsuit.

Congratulations on your editorial (Aug. 5), "Tort Reform, Industry Reform." The reading public is finally getting some intelligent help in understanding this problem. You write that the legal system bears at least some responsibility for the astronomical increase in insurance rates. I would suggest you examine how this has occurred. In our adversary system of jurisprudence, advocates are always going to try to get whatever they can for their clients. It is the courts that are supposed to exercise calm and reasoned judgment in supervising jury verdicts.

A package of bills to change the rules covering California damage suits will start working its way through the Legislature next week. If it survives, it could be the start of something old. Something old in the sense that the measures represent a return to the art of give-and-take in shaping legislation so that nobody goes away empty-handed and nobody gets so much of what he wants that it takes a wheelbarrow to move it out of Sacramento.

Californians are frustrated with the high cost of liability insurance, as their overwhelming approval of Proposition 51 demonstrated. All 50 states have enacted some kind of tort reform to bring down the cost of insurance, and there are many bills in the state Legislature that would place limits on attorney fees and awards for damages.

Gov. George Deukmejian on Wednesday signed a secretly drafted and hastily approved measure designed to make it more difficult to sue doctors, manufacturers and businesses for civil wrongdoing. Deukmejian vetoed a measure to bail out Los Angeles County's faltering network of trauma care centers, saying the specially equipped hospital emergency rooms were a local responsibility that could be paid for from other funds he has approved this year.

Every circus needs a sideshow, which must be why every time the issue of rising medical costs gets debated, politicians start clamoring for "tort reform." You know the argument: Disgruntled patients, goaded on by unscrupulous lawyers, file frivolous malpractice lawsuits and walk off with millions of dollars in undeserved awards granted by teary-eyed jurors. Doctors respond by practicing "defensive medicine," ordering lots of unnecessary tests to cover their behinds. Bingo! Medical costs hit the stratosphere.

Re: David Lazarus' consumer column "A healthcare solution that costs nothing," Aug. 16: David Lazarus' suggestion that doctors be forced to do pro bono work typifies the glibness with which statists and "liberals" advocate the use of force to solve social problems. It is true that the "solution" would cost nothing to Mr. Lazarus or the patients, but it would be costly to doctors already working long hours and saddled with debt and malpractice insurance premiums. How one can justify using the law to infringe upon liberty and property -- which it was established to protect -- is apparently never considered by our would-be central planners.

Re "Even the Odious Have Legal Rights," Commentary, March 30: Thank you, Andres Martinez, for the common-sense article about our judicial system. As a liberal who has long been a proponent of tort reform, I am embarrassed that the left turns a blind eye to the immorality of the legal system in much the same way that the right does with big business. James L. Hardeman Fullerton Martinez presents a good argument on why fixing the legal system is so important. The class-action system was established so that groups of injured or harmed plaintiffs could pool their resources under one lawsuit.

As a society, we've allowed our hatred of tobacco companies to erode the integrity of our judicial system and the Constitution's promise of due process. Indeed, in the context of tort law and civil trials, Big Tobacco is not unlike those "enemy combatants" stashed away at Guantanamo -- defendants so odious the rest of us hardly care if the system's ordinary rules are stretched or suspended to go after them.

Re "Dominance on GOP Agenda," Feb. 2: The Republicans finally have come clean about their true intentions in tort "reform." They want to make it harder for trial lawyers to make money so the lawyers will have a lot less to contribute to Democratic candidates. The truth is the Republicans want to take money from all Americans in order to keep money away from Democrats in elections. When an injured person wins a tort case, the majority of the money, most commonly two-thirds, goes to the injured person.

For 50 years, the American civil justice system has been the last, best line of defense for the average Joe against the abuse of corporate power and a government that too often fails to protect its citizens. "Tort" litigation won redress for Vietnam vets suffering from exposure to Agent Orange and for African Americans denied service at Denny's restaurants, and it may finally also do so for the Enron shareholders who lost pensions and life savings when that company imploded.

How's this for "industrial policy"? Consider an extremely well-educated, value-added, white-collar work force whose skills and savvy are the envy of the industrialized world. This multibillion-dollar knowledge industry has global reach and influence. America is the undisputed leader in this vital competitive arena, and other countries increasingly look to the United States for both inspiration and imitation. Just ask China, Japan and the emerging-market economies of Eastern Europe.

Amid widespread speculation that he is about to announce his candidacy for the White House, Gov. Pete Wilson on Friday took part in an odd twist on the traditional political ritual of kissing babies. To demonstrate the safety of products for infants made by Munchkin Inc. of Van Nuys, Wilson struggled to yank the nipple off a cap to a baby bottle before a crowd of reporters.

Business groups have ranked it the nation's No. 1 "judicial hellhole," where the threat of malpractice cases has caused many physicians to flee. President Bush has chosen it as the place to launch his second-term campaign to restrain the cost of civil litigation. Yet in Madison County, Ill., where Bush will appear today to push for congressional passage of a $250,000 cap on jury awards for pain and suffering, there are signs the medical malpractice crisis may be easing.

Re "Texans Still at Odds Over Bush's Legal Reforms," Sept. 22: After working 10 years to enact 35 civil justice reform measures, it was a great disappointment to see our efforts wrongly characterized as changes to residential liability statutes that were never part of any tort reform effort. Residential construction statutes are also no measure of Gov. George Bush's reform record, as they were enacted either before or after Bush was governor. Though quoted plaintiff lawyers claim consumers have been denied the right to sue in Texas, no tort reform bill took away that right.