Liability & tort reform
Tort-reform is one of those issues that seems to divide democrats from republicans. The republican view is that out of control damage awards is hampering business, where the democrat view is that tort-reform removes the right to redress from legitimate complaintants. It is a demonstrated fact that malpractice insurance costs are a prime mover behind the rise of health care costs, and those rates are rising due to huge pay-outs.
plaintiff argue that the healtcare industry needs to be more careful. Doctors argue that multi-million damage claims are excessive. Republicans argue that a large chunk of the money goes to the winning trial lawyer so the incentive to try more cases is right there.
Healthcare is another of those areas where perfection is expected, and anything short of perfection is a fault that needs to be fixed. Recently, 'fault' has a pricetag attached to it once that fault is determined. Our society is a litigious one, so fault is a matter of big bucks.
Doctors need malpractice insurance in order to be able to pay out if a claim is filed. As with all insurance, if a claim IS paid out the cost of the insurance goes up dramatically. For a lot of firms, it is one strike and you're out. HMOs have pushed margins for medical offices so far that a quadrupling of the malpractice insurance premium can't be absorbed without serious cuts to the basic business. A lot choose to just go out of business.
And this doesn't just extend to healthcare. Liability for injury of any form has caused dramatic changes in many areas. Doctors are now having patients mark which part of their body will be operated on. Tickets to sporting venues have "agree to hold harmless" clauses on the back of each ticket. Warning labels abound for what common sense would tell a person anyway.
Take a personal example, soccer. The rules as put out by FIFA state that the Referee has the responsibility to make sure that the player's equipment is safe. The rules go on to list what is safe equipment. This implies rather strongly that the referee will inspect the players equipment.
High School soccer is the very beginning of the traditional ladder of sports god-hood, as athletic scholarships to colleges can be earned here. Since significant money can ride on how well a player does in a season, there is vested interest that the player is dealt with fairly. High School rules state that the standard equipment check shall not be performed by the referee, but rather by the coach. The referee will ask the coach, "Coach, are your players appropriately equipped," the coach will say, "Yes," and that is it. Should a piece of equipment prove defective during play the referee will send the player off to deal with it. This transfers the liability of any injury relating to unsafe equipment being allowed onto the field onto the backs to the player's school, not the official or the league. Some USSF/USYSA leagues are now doing this as well.
Second point, handling of injuries. Officials are told quite clearly to never touch an injured player. The job of the official is to halt play and call onto the field attendants who are skilled at handling injured players. If an official touches a player it could be construed as a form of treatment, and subject to lawsuit. It may be human kindness to offer a hand to help the guy up, or a comforting hand on the shoulder of the sobbing 12 year old girl, but don't do it. Things are complex enough as it is regarding when the whistle blew to stop play ("failure to recognize a serious problem") and how the player got injured ("permitted player to get injured") to add in possible another big area ("aggravated injury").
Third point, blood. The rules were changed several years ago to codify what had been a decision of the international board that any player who is visibly bleeding has to be removed from the field before they can be allowed back on. This ruling first came into being due to HIV considerations of all things, but on reflection the lawyers liked it on principle.
Personally, I have to break from the democratic pack on this one and think that some restraints on damages might be in order. Not the $250,000 cap proposed by some quarters, since that kind of money can go really fast in the case of a serious and prolonged injury. But some form of restraint.
plaintiff argue that the healtcare industry needs to be more careful. Doctors argue that multi-million damage claims are excessive. Republicans argue that a large chunk of the money goes to the winning trial lawyer so the incentive to try more cases is right there.
Healthcare is another of those areas where perfection is expected, and anything short of perfection is a fault that needs to be fixed. Recently, 'fault' has a pricetag attached to it once that fault is determined. Our society is a litigious one, so fault is a matter of big bucks.
Doctors need malpractice insurance in order to be able to pay out if a claim is filed. As with all insurance, if a claim IS paid out the cost of the insurance goes up dramatically. For a lot of firms, it is one strike and you're out. HMOs have pushed margins for medical offices so far that a quadrupling of the malpractice insurance premium can't be absorbed without serious cuts to the basic business. A lot choose to just go out of business.
And this doesn't just extend to healthcare. Liability for injury of any form has caused dramatic changes in many areas. Doctors are now having patients mark which part of their body will be operated on. Tickets to sporting venues have "agree to hold harmless" clauses on the back of each ticket. Warning labels abound for what common sense would tell a person anyway.
Take a personal example, soccer. The rules as put out by FIFA state that the Referee has the responsibility to make sure that the player's equipment is safe. The rules go on to list what is safe equipment. This implies rather strongly that the referee will inspect the players equipment.
High School soccer is the very beginning of the traditional ladder of sports god-hood, as athletic scholarships to colleges can be earned here. Since significant money can ride on how well a player does in a season, there is vested interest that the player is dealt with fairly. High School rules state that the standard equipment check shall not be performed by the referee, but rather by the coach. The referee will ask the coach, "Coach, are your players appropriately equipped," the coach will say, "Yes," and that is it. Should a piece of equipment prove defective during play the referee will send the player off to deal with it. This transfers the liability of any injury relating to unsafe equipment being allowed onto the field onto the backs to the player's school, not the official or the league. Some USSF/USYSA leagues are now doing this as well.
Second point, handling of injuries. Officials are told quite clearly to never touch an injured player. The job of the official is to halt play and call onto the field attendants who are skilled at handling injured players. If an official touches a player it could be construed as a form of treatment, and subject to lawsuit. It may be human kindness to offer a hand to help the guy up, or a comforting hand on the shoulder of the sobbing 12 year old girl, but don't do it. Things are complex enough as it is regarding when the whistle blew to stop play ("failure to recognize a serious problem") and how the player got injured ("permitted player to get injured") to add in possible another big area ("aggravated injury").
Third point, blood. The rules were changed several years ago to codify what had been a decision of the international board that any player who is visibly bleeding has to be removed from the field before they can be allowed back on. This ruling first came into being due to HIV considerations of all things, but on reflection the lawyers liked it on principle.
Personally, I have to break from the democratic pack on this one and think that some restraints on damages might be in order. Not the $250,000 cap proposed by some quarters, since that kind of money can go really fast in the case of a serious and prolonged injury. But some form of restraint.
posted by Corwin at 9:45 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home