When lawmakers say they want to cut down on frivolous (medical related) lawsuits, what do they mean?

Question

Who would decide what's frivolous or not? When referring to medical malpractice suits, shouldn't it be our right to sue, if we weren't treated appropriately?

I can agree with that, wholeheartedly....but what about medical malpractice lawsuits?

Answer 1

The lawmakers are being pushed by lobbyists who aren't really as worried about so-called frivolous lawsuits - as several have pointed out, there already are many limitations which screen out those lawuits early on, or preclude their filing. For example, in many states, there is already a requirement that another doctor testify that the conduct of the defendant was negligent, That alone limits the number of frivolous lawusits.

What the lawmakers - and the lobbyists pushing them - are really worried about is the size of the awards being won by plaintiffs in the NON-frivolous cases, the ones in which doctors actually have injured a patient through negligence - and the resultant increase in the cost of malpractice insurance. And in some states doctors' lobbyists have persuaded legislators to pass limitations on jury awards to plaintiffs...whether you consider that to be a good or bad thing probably depends on your perspective.

Answer 2

That's the problem.

Current rules already forbid frivolous lawsuits. The determination is made by the judge -- basically, if the plaintiff cannot meet the initial burden to show that the law supports the claim and that they meet all elements required for their claim, their lawsuit is dismissed. If any competent lawyer should have known the lawsuit would be dismissed, it's declared frivolous.

The rules of civil procedure have been amended many times trying to strike the right balance between allowing plaintiffs the opportunity to seek recompense, and to protect defendants from wasting their time on frivolous claims.

Most current proposals don't shift that any further, so it really wouldn't change whether frivolous lawsuits are filed. Most current bills just cap the damages that can be awarded, making it less likely that someone will pursue a claim just on the off chance of hitting it rich.

Answer 3

Well the best example is that guy who sued the dry cleaner that lost his pants for millions. That is more than just silly.
I mean what did the pants cost $100 bucks even if they were some expensive brand $500. But sueing them for millions?
Or the lady who sued for a million because her coffee was actually hot?
I mean really - they are like people that purposely get hit so they can sue you, it's a scam.

So I would define frivolous as any suit that is for an huge amount when it is not something that was life threatening, did not kill the person or permanently damage them. Also I would include any suit that was brought on by someone just looking for an opening to make money.

Edit You are right medical malpractice would be a lot harder to sort out. One of my sister's friends had a scaple left inside him when he had a hernia surgery and it perforated his intestines - so yes I feel he definitely was right to sue.

Answer 4

Actually, "frivolous" can apply to defenses and to defense motions and objections as well, and there are a lot of those out there. "Frivolous" is probably the most mis-used word in mainstream conversation about the law. The dry cleaners case IS a good example. But note that the plaintiff received nothing. (The fact that a plaintiff received nothing does not, by itself, render the case a frivolous one.) All too often, the word "frivolous" is used to describe lawsuits which do in fact have merit and which involved substantial settlements or verdicts---making them, by definition "meritorious" and therefore NOT frivolous. All too often, claims having substantial settlement or verdict value are falsely and incorrectly described as "frivolous" to generate hysteria by and among those who disagree with the results reached in those cases. A truly frivolous plaintiff's case has, at most, nuisance value, but not the substantial value so often attached to the so-called "frivolous" cases. I can tell you that, in a court of law, most of the cases described by the talking heads as "frivolous" are, by legal definition, not frivolous and a motion to declare such a case frivolous or to dismiss, etc., would itself be frivolous!

Answer 5

right this is a few thing to replicate on; think of your healthcare expert makes a mistake that fee you a physique section; or would require investment that exceeds your previous earnings. Now with Tort Reform; there may be limited legal duty; and you'd be caught between a rock and a demanding place. definite I do agree that frivolous lawsuits prevail in our court docket gadget, yet would desire to the harmless pay the fee for the evil reasons of others.