- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Prosecutorial Misconduct Reform
Posted on 1/20/24 at 10:00 am to NIH
Posted on 1/20/24 at 10:00 am to NIH
quote:
Loser pays would be a disaster for my clients. If you take loser pays from the contract context, you just have to prove breach to be awarded attorney’s fees. In the PI context, that would just mean proving a defendant is negligent, which is sometimes the easier battle to win. You can still be distracted, hit someone, and they bring a bullshite case against you with inflated damages. Your average personal injury case going to trial these days is usually fought and won on damages.
They don't understand the liability stuff with these car wreck cases.
NC is seeing this via the med mal lens, which is a completely different animal (and in terms of cases, an extreme minority)
2
Posted on 1/20/24 at 10:01 am to SlowFlowPro
I practice in a top 5 legal market and I know about 10 firms that even dabble in med mal
Posted on 1/20/24 at 10:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Yes and no. Case numbers? Perhaps. But MedMal drives huge secondary and tertiary US system expense which your dismissive comment indicates you underappreciate. My emphases on medmal was also respondent to an ambulance chaser posting in the thread.
NC is seeing this via the med mal lens, which is a completely different animal (and in terms of cases, an extreme minority)
Posted on 1/20/24 at 11:10 am to NIH
quote:For those in tight cases perhaps.
I practice commercial litigation and some insurance defense, defending companies and non profits. Loser pays would be a disaster for my clients.
But understand, you were responding to a targeted medmal post with an attractive nonadversarial option for the injured party. The objective in that instance is efficiency, while preserving injury compensation. In application, it is a demonstrably better alternative to our system.
I don't know if a nonadversarial option has been successfully employed outside of the medical context. Although, it would certainly seem feasible.
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 11:13 am
Posted on 1/20/24 at 11:17 am to NC_Tigah
Doctors have the most protections of any professional in most states. Whine elsewhere.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 11:38 am to NIH
quote:You mistake facts for "whining." You mistake my response for protectionism. Those "protections" hurt injured plaintiffs with legit claims. I'm not remotely in favor of that.
Doctors have the most protections of any professional in most states. Whine elsewhere.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:11 pm to NC_Tigah
Are you a doctor or nurse?
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:16 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
You keep inserting these odd emotional terms. The insertions are equally odd in that they are nonresponsive to the discussion.
quote:
ambulance chaser
Now that you have continuously moved the goalposts, and now intend for your loser pays system to apply to med mal only, ok fine. Med mal enjoys an entirely different process (in Louisiana, at least) already, so let’s go with that. Again, let’s put a line item on the verdict form for attorney’s fees and have the loser pay the other side’s fees. Seriously, tell me where to sign.
But you may want to check with LAMMICO and the rest of the med mal defense industry, because they vehemently oppose your plan.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:18 pm to NIH
Has to be a nurse. I’ve represented many nurses and they always know more than doctors.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:38 pm to NIH
quote:Yes.
Are you a doctor or nurse?
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:41 pm to Jax-Tiger
I have always thought adding an element of "benefitting the public good" should be required for any prosecution. Merely showing someone broke a law shouldn't be enough to prosecute if it doesn't benefit the public.
Jury nullification addresses this but is completely shunned by modern jurists.
Jury nullification addresses this but is completely shunned by modern jurists.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:44 pm to NaturalBeam
quote:
medical provider doesn’t actually pay anything, his insurance company does. Therefore, he has no incentive to settle a case and forces everyone to go to trial, raising expenses for all.
I have 2 active suits against medical providers for a retained foreign object from surgery. Maybe they’ll settle, but they haven’t yet. Why would they? They have no skin in the game.
----
Now that you have continuously moved the goalposts
You provided the target. I simply addressed it.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:44 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I have always thought adding an element of "benefitting the public good" should be required for any prosecution. Merely showing someone broke a law shouldn't be enough to prosecute if it doesn't benefit the public.
What nonsense
The simple fact that the behavior is prohibited by law passed by a legislature inherently means that preventing said behavior is a benefit to the public.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:47 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The simple fact that the behavior is prohibited by law passed by a legislature inherently means that preventing said behavior is a benefit to the public.
I can't tell if you're being naive or sarcastic. Care to choose?
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:50 pm to Jax-Tiger
Fuel the public message of illegitimate courts while the courts delegitimize themselves.
Deligitmize the universities producing these lunatics and the bar associations credentialing them.
Push it harder and harder until theirs is political will behind states counties and feds all ignoring each other.
Deligitmize the universities producing these lunatics and the bar associations credentialing them.
Push it harder and harder until theirs is political will behind states counties and feds all ignoring each other.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 12:54 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I can't tell if you're being naive or sarcastic. Care to choose?
The guy who wants some nebulous fairy tale showing of benefitting the public good is calling me naive?
The public already decided the behavior is undesirable and should be punished via prosecution.
This post was edited on 1/20/24 at 12:55 pm
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:05 pm to Indefatigable
quote:Indeed.
The public already decided the behavior is undesirable and should be punished via prosecution.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:13 pm to NC_Tigah
Segregationist laws were outlawed in the 1960’s.
Do you support the fairy tale showing like the other guy or are you just being an edgelord?
Do you support the fairy tale showing like the other guy or are you just being an edgelord?
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:17 pm to Indefatigable
quote:
The public already decided the behavior is undesirable and should be punished via prosecution.
ok. I am guessing you think the prosecution of all Jan 6ers is right too? Or the marine who defended a subway car full of innocent bystanders after a homeless man threatened to kill them all? Or Rittenhouse?
This isn't nebulous at all. But hey if you think all laws are inherently just and benefit the public I have some prime oceanfront property to sell you in Oklahoma.
Posted on 1/20/24 at 1:19 pm to NYNolaguy1
quote:
I am guessing you think the prosecution of all Jan 6ers is right too? Or the marine who defended a subway car full of innocent bystanders after a homeless man threatened to kill them all? Or Rittenhouse?
Who said that?
I’m just pointing out that your make believe “benefiting the public” standard is about the most arbitrary and unworkable suggestion I’ve ever seen.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News