Suing the sick

[Scooter]

Big difference between breaking an ankle and ligament damage.

I see. So someone with torn ligaments should just say, "bugger, silly me" and get on with their life?

FYI, ligament damage is often permanent, and leads to progressive deterioration of the affected joint. Just sayin'

Scoot, you brought up "copays" we do not have "copays" in the UK.

Didn't you just finish saying you had to pay a portion of your drug costs? What other medical costs are not covered 100%? Are you saying that EVERY medical cost that a person with the nurse's injuries might conceivably need, over the course of her lifetime, will be covered 100%? (Hint - if the answer is "yes", it is the ONLY such health care system in the entire world)

Did it never occur to you that she may be faking ongoing pain...

That's a question of fact to be addressed by the medical evidence. Obviously no one is arguing that people who fake injuries are entitled to anything, so I see no purpose whatsoever for even asking this.

Is your objection to her having filed suit based on your belief that her injuries are bogus, or that she shouldn't be compensated even if her injuries are as serious as have been reported and are demonstrated to have been caused by the negligence of the homeowner?

... as her lawyers are trying to, as they claim; "We aim to maximize the amount of compensation that you receive, ensuring that you get proper compensation for your injuries."

Exactly, "proper compensation". Is there something about injured people getting "properly compensated" that is supposed to instill outrage in me?

[Gob]

How do we know how bad the ligament damage is? We do not. You have chosen to take one end of the scale, me the other.

Again, we do not have, nor consider, such a thing as "copays" in the UK. If the doctor gives you a script, you go and pay the six quid for it. End of story.

I want no one to be outraged.

I was looking at this case from a UK perspective, the minutiae of this particular case are not important. This idea though of suing for falling over is totally alien to the UK.

Long may it stay that way. Cases like this just go to show the abhorrence of the idea in the UK.

[dales]

I hope the bitch gets gangrene and has her ankle amputated.

Socilaized medicine will pay for that as well.

[Scooter]

How do we know how bad the ligament damage is? We do not.

Precisely. We have no idea. Therefore calling the case "ludicrous", calling her lawyers "ambulance chasers", and accusing her of "swinging it" have not the slightest justificaion.

You have chosen to take one end of the scale, me the other.

I haven't expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of this case. You mistake not dismissing the merits of the case out of hand with taking a side.

I was looking at this case from a UK perspective, the minutiae of this particular case are not important.

Of course, once again, as on other occasions, any pertinent facts which tend to argue against your extreme and completely unjustifiable conclusions are "minutiae" and "unimportant".

This idea though of suing for falling over is totally alien to the UK.

If the facts show she merely "fell over", she will have no case. If, on the other hand, facts show that her fall was directly caused by negligence on the part of the homeowner, then that is a different matter.

You want to stay away from the minutiae of this case, fine. Then I will ask a very general, systemic question: Should a person injured because of another person's negligence be entitled to reasonable compensation from that person to the extent of his/her damages? Why or why not?

Long may it stay that way. Cases like this just go to show the abhorrence of the idea in the UK.

You want no one to be outraged, and yet an incredibly slanted press piece written to generate outrage has clearly managed to play you like a puppet on a string.

You should read the thread at CSB that bsg referenced. You'll never guess who was making precisely the same arguments you are now.

[Gob]

]Precisely. We have no idea. Therefore calling the case "ludicrous", calling her lawyers "ambulance chasers", and accusing her of "swinging it" have not the slightest justificaion.

The firm concerned advertise for this sort of work, that, in my books, makes them ambulance chasers.

I haven't expressed any opinion whatsoever on the merits of this case. You mistake not dismissing the merits of the case out of hand with taking a side.

Who was talking about the merits of the case? You were arguing from the perspective of her having a severe injury, I was assuming she had a twisted ankle.

Of course, once again, as on other occasions, any pertinent facts which tend to argue against your extreme and completely unjustifiable conclusions are "minutiae" and "unimportant".

Well if you only want to look at the pros and cons of this case, and argue without evidence, whether this case is right or wrong, then that's your choice. I would have preferred the debate to be wider, to take in the notion of suing as a growing culture in the UK, compared with other countries, and the rights or wrongs of that.

]If the facts show she merely "fell over", she will have no case. If, on the other hand, facts show that her fall was directly caused by negligence on the part of the homeowner, then that is a different matter.

It has little to do with the facts though does it? If there is sufficient evidence to prove she was not at fault, then she may win. If there were no witnesses to say, "She wasn't looking where she was going and tripped over something obvious", she will win. Once the lawyers get their teeth into it, the "facts" will be malleable as putty. That's what they are paid for.

Please don't consider me as stupid as to believe that this firm of solicitors who make their cash by suing for injury are only interested in the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You want to stay away from the minutiae of this case, fine. Then I will ask a very general, systemic question: Should a person injured because of another person's negligence be entitled to reasonable compensation from that person to the extent of his/her damages? Why or why not?

Of course a grave injury leading to loss of limb, health, or livelihood etc should be compensated. If one persons negligence is the sole cause of that happening, then they should be prosecuted and made to pay.

You want no one to be outraged, and yet an incredibly slanted press piece written to generate outrage has clearly managed to play you like a puppet on a string.

Yes I find the concept of someone suing for thousands for a twisted ankle outrageous, in the UK it would be. Even if the home made ramp that this woman slipped on was totally unsuitable for purpose, she chose to walk down it. If she had some sense of personal responsibility, maybe she would have accepted that it was her choice and maybe even a little carelessness on her part, which had led to the accident. By just concentrating on then minutia, the bigger picture is lost.

You should read the thread at CSB that bsg referenced. You'll never guess who was making precisely the same arguments you are now.

If BSG wants to bring those points here, I'll gladly take them into account. It matters not who argued them there, do you think should I change my viewpoint because, Steve (or whomever) agrees with me?

[Scooter]

I would suggest you take a look at it, particularly at some of Sue's posts in which she dispels some of the myths of PI claims which appear to be coloring your thinking. I found this to be a particularly enlightening illustration of why a claim for a PI that is not totally disabling is worth a lot more than what some might think.

[BoSoxGal]

I don't dispute that some personal injury claims are fraudulent and some personal injury lawyers unethical in their practice.

There are bad apples in every barrel.

But would you set a rule by which persons harmed by negligence had no recourse to seek counsel or access the courts as a means to prevent these instances of fraud? Such persons should just leave themselves to the mercy of the negligent person or the negligent person's insurance carrier and hope that they are justly recompensed for their injury?

'Ambulance chaser' is a highly derogatory label because here in the US it is unethical and a violation of the rules of professional conduct for attorneys (whether PI or any other kind of practice) to approach individuals with a possible legal claim and attempt to persuade them to pursue that claim with a mind toward a pecuniary gain for said attorney. Attorneys can advertise that they are available to render certain services; given the cut-rate divorces thread you started, clearly such general advertisement of services is legal in the UK as well.

FYI, here is the Rule:

Model Rules of Professional Conduct
Information About Legal Services
Rule 7.3 Direct Contact With Prospective Clients
(a) A lawyer shall not by in-person, live telephone or real-time electronic contact solicit professional employment from a prospective client when a significant motive for the lawyer's doing so is the lawyer's pecuniary gain, unless the person contacted:
(1) is a lawyer; or
(2) has a family, close personal, or prior professional relationship with the lawyer.
(b) A lawyer shall not solicit professional employment from a prospective client by written, recorded or electronic communication or by in-person, telephone or real-time electronic contact even when not otherwise prohibited by paragraph (a), if:
(1) the prospective client has made known to the lawyer a desire not to be solicited by the lawyer; or
(2) the solicitation involves coercion, duress or harassment.
(c) Every written, recorded or electronic communication from a lawyer soliciting professional employment from a prospective client known to be in need of legal services in a particular matter shall include the words "Advertising Material" on the outside envelope, if any, and at the beginning and ending of any recorded or electronic communication, unless the recipient of the communication is a person specified in paragraphs (a)(1) or (a)(2).
(d) Notwithstanding the prohibitions in paragraph (a), a lawyer may participate with a prepaid or group legal service plan operated by an organization not owned or directed by the lawyer that uses in-person or telephone contact to solicit memberships or subscriptions for the plan from persons who are not known to need legal services in a particular matter covered by the plan.

Are there ambulance chasers in my profession? Of course. Are they the norm? Of course not. The majority of us who work hard and ethically, bear the brunt of the negative public perception of our profession that such persons help create. I understand that most of your comments are shaped by such perceptions, but please remember that there is a presumption of innocence for attorneys as well - without evidence that the particular firm you are decrying has a reputation for unethical practice, it's unfair to be jumping to such conclusions as you are, Gob.

The report to the Judiciary Committee of the US Congress that I linked indicates that the UK is similarly litigious as the US - at least as of 2004. I haven't had the time to research further, but I'm guessing that personal injury claims are not so rare in your homeland as you might think.

[Gob]

I don't disagree with anything you say there BSG.

However, I was hoping that the cultural difference, and the UK reticence and dislike of this "suing for injury" phenomena was worthy of debate.

I'll apologise here for using emotive language to try to get it going, and again after re reading the thread, I'll apologise for not giving the direction of debate I saw worthy overtly from the off.

Maybe I'll start another thread

[Gob]

America has become the most litigious nation in the world, by virtually any measure. According to the National Center for State Courts, 15 million civil cases are filed annually in the United States. The American civil justice system is the most expensive in the world, with costs running more than twice that of other industrialized nations. Yet despite the high costs of the system, it provides a poor return on the dollar—only 20 cents of each dollar goes to compensation for economic damages.

Sadly, these statistics are little to brag about. By conservative estimates, the direct costs of the mushrooming legal profession are roughly $180 billion annually or almost 1.8 percent of GDP. These measures refer only to the direct costs of the legal system, and do not include other consumer costs, such as higher prices for the goods and services they consume, as well as the reduced availability of goods and services that are taken off the market for fear of lawsuits

Unfortunately, the boom in litigation feeds upon itself. The legal profession, which has attracted more than its share of America’s brightest, has turned into an entrepreneurial bonanza for ambitious and clever trial lawyers. Much of their work is based on the redistribution of wealth rather than the creation of wealth. Billions have been made in the courtroom by suing companies. This does not add to the nation’s output or increase GDP, it simply shifts wealth from one group to another—with lawyers taking at least of third of it in the process.

In recent years, the excesses of the courts have become more visible. The “litigation crisis,” million dollar verdicts, and massive class action suits are all symptoms of the changes that have occurred in the courtroom since the 1960s. The law of contract and individual responsibility have been minimized in favor of creating a social safety net aimed at compensating victims with little regard to fault. Individual assumption of risk—such as driving with a hot cup of coffee or eating too many fatty foods—is often downplayed in favor of pricey lawsuits against manufacturers. This shift in attitude has been accompanied by procedural changes that have facilitated increased litigation and increasing damage awards.

http://www.freedomworks.org/publication ... ort-reform

[Scooter]

Did you read the link that BSG posted earlier? It completely refutes that steaming pile of tort reformist bullshit.

[Gob]

Yeah, I've read that, it sounds like the other side of the coin. I'm not saying its findings are untrue, but that they may be biased.

Take this for instance.

Country Cases per 1,000 Population
U.S.A. 74.5
UK/England & Wales 64.4

let's do the maths.

USA pop. 307,006,550
UK pop. 61,838,154

Therefore actual cases;

US: 307006 x 74.5 = 22,871,947

UK 61838 x 64.4 = 398,236

[BoSoxGal]

Of course with a greater population we'll have more cases - it's still essentially the same percentage of the population that seeks redress for injury. This issue has been studied and debated endlessly over here. The truth is, the US is no more litigious now than in was 100 years ago, or 150 years ago.

Did you overlook the list of countries that are more litigious than the US? Do they get a pass because they have a smaller population so the overall number of cases is smaller than the US? Those cultures (Germany's, for instance) are clearly more 'sue-happy' than ours.

Of course, I would argue, the Germans as a people quite likely simply feel more entitled to redress for grievances that we do - they believe in fairness and justice over 'shit happens' more than we do. I don't necessarily see that as wrong.

Frankly, I feel sorry for the 9/10 injured people who suck it up and bear the cost of another's negligence without seeking redress. I've been one of them at times in my life, and in the end, you only suffer by not asking people who have wronged you negligently to be accountable for their behavior - and they go about their negligence, victimizing others who might have been spared that injury, had the negligent actor been held accountable in the first place and learned a lesson regarding the duty of care to others.

That bit you posted is incredibly biased tort-reform proponent dogma; what I posted is an independent, academic study. A fair bit of difference there, I would assert.

[Scooter]

You have slipped a decimal (UK would be 3,982,367 cases), but I'm not seeing what point you are making. Clearly it is far less biased to compare cases on a per capita basis than to do so on an absolute basis. Obviously countries with larger populations are going to tend to generate more civil cases.* It would hardly be fair to compare solely based on the total number of cases to say, for example, that the U.S. (pop'n 307,000,000) is more litigious than Vatican City (pop'n 1,000)


*although that will not be the only factor influencing the number of civil cases. Countries with larger numbers of corporate entities will also generate larger numbers of civil cases, for example.

[Lord Jim]

Countries with larger numbers of corporate entities will also generate larger numbers of civil cases, for example.

Now I wonder why that would be?

A larger number of entities with "deep pockets" springs immediately to mind as one possible explanation.....

[Scooter]

A larger number of entities which have the potential to engage in tortious behaviour is actually where I was going.

Just as larger numbers of people are going to commit more torts, so too are larger numbers of corporations.

[Sue U]

Countries with larger numbers of corporate entities will also generate larger numbers of civil cases, for example.

Now I wonder why that would be?

A larger number of entities with "deep pockets" springs immediately to mind as one possible explanation.....

No, actually it's because the vast majority of lawsuits are businesses suing each other over contract and other commercial issues. Personal injury cases make up only a fraction of civil filings.

ETA:

In making the assertion above, I was only thinking about civil filings in what is typically known as the Law Division of the courts; I didn't even think of the civil filings on the Equity side and particularly in Family Part. A huge percentage of filings are foreclosure and bankruptcy proceedings. Divorce and custody actions also dwarf other civil litigation by orders of magnitude. Another enormous class of civil filings is landlord-tenant disputes. It is ludicrous to simply point to the number of civil filings and think that tells you anything about whether a society is "litigious," let alone what those cases might be about.

[Sue U]

Oh, and "Freedomworks," Gob? Puh-leeze; it's not like that's not an organization with an agenda or anything, just Dick Armey's Army of Dicks. And far from a "litigation crisis," of the small number of cases representing personal injury/wrongful death actions like auto, premises, products liability, med mal and environmental tort, filings have actually decreased dramatically over the last 15 years. Your quoted article is so full of horseshit that I can't believe there's not even a pony in there.

[Gob]

Don't know much about it, just looking for facts to back up my case Sue.

How about this?

http://www.res.org.uk/society/mediabrie ... -vries.pdf

As a fraction of GDP, litigation expenditures in the United States are three times greater
than those in the UK; 3.3 tort suits are filed in the United States for each 1,000 inhabitants
compared with only 1.2 per 1,000 in England.

[Jarlaxle]

Well the Daily Mail actually had the decency to mention (buried at the bottom of the article) that the nurse in question "has sustained severe ligament damage to her ankle and foot that is currently causing her severe pain, has led her to wearing an aircast boot, the use of crutches and a course of physiotherapy" and that she has been out of work for six months as a result of the accident.

Simple twist of the ankle, that.

And, of course, she would NEVER milk it for all it's worth hoping to get a bigger payout! No, PERISH THE THOUGHT!

[Scooter]

Don't know much about it, just looking for facts to back up my case Sue.

How about this?

http://www.res.org.uk/society/mediabrie ... -vries.pdf

As a fraction of GDP, litigation expenditures in the United States are three times greater
than those in the UK; 3.3 tort suits are filed in the United States for each 1,000 inhabitants
compared with only 1.2 per 1,000 in England.

Those differences could be explained by the difference in the structure of health care. Since, as we have been told, in the UK ALL health care expenses are covered by the NHS, someone who in the US would have to sue to recover out-of pocket health care expenses would have no reason to sue if they lived in the UK.

There are also almost twice as many automobiles per capita in the US than in the UK. Since automobile accidents constitute a significant source of tort claims, this also goes a long way towards explaining the difference.

Per capita GDP is 1.3 times greater in the US than in the UK. It is to be expected that a higher level of economic activity will result in a higher level of litigation.

There are any number of reasons, none of which have to do with "litigiousness", that could explain why there are more tort actions in the US than in the UK.

And where, by the way, is the comparative data for Germany, which we have already seen has twice the number of civil suits per capita as the UK. Is Germany, therefore, also a "litigious" society?

Or is it completely coincidence that this myth that the US excessively litigious is being propagated precisely by those who have the most to gain from tort reform: corporations guilty of tortious acts who are not satisfied that 9 out of 10 times their egregious behaviour will never see the light of day, and instead want to shift even more of the cost of their negligence and recklessness on the victims of their actions?