Tort Reform - Bond for Future Medicals

quote:

---

I cannot find any real downside, though I suppose Plaintiffs' counsel's contingency fee payment would be lower. I am sure counsel are willing to take that hit though if in the best interest of their client.

---

Well, of course. Plaintiff attorneys always have the well being of their clients at the forefront. That is why they send them to incompetent doctors who will botch unnecessary surgeries requiring additional surgeries. Then addiction to pain medicine addiction and pain management. Yes sir, they put the Womac on them , one call gets it done.

Well, I mean, all those “future medicals” aren’t actually going to be performed. Have you run into any 78 year olds that have had RFAs for life? I bet those plaintiffs want the cash for procedures that won’t ever be performed, not a fund that requires they actually get cut on to get money.

Edit: spelling

quote:

---

Well, I mean, all those “future medicals” aren’t actually going to be performed. Have you run into any 78 year olds that have had RFAs for life? I bet those plaintiffs want the cash for procedures that won’t ever be performed, not a fund that requires they actually get cut on to get money.

---

I cannot imagine a Plaintiff would attempt to collect medicals for surgeries he or she never intends to undergo. Even if that was the case, Plaintiff's counsel, as an officer of the court, would not submit a claim for damages based on surgeries an individual never intends to have, right?

The bond or fund would help make sure funds are available in case they are needed. If we are truly awarding damages for future surgeries, treatment or procedures, shouldn't we tie the payment to actually having the treatment?

It does not necessarily need to be tied to lowering insurance rates. It is a measure to reform special damage awards and to protect plaintiffs. It would also prevent a plaintiff from spending money intended for procedures, and then using health insurance, Medicare of Medicaid at a later time when the settlement funds have been spent.

quote:

---

We already have the ACA. Do you want the government more involved in collecting money for insurance companies, or would you rather leave that as something to be handled in a contractual manner between the insurer and the insured?

I'd rather keep the government out of the insurance company collections business.

---

My real concern is paying a Plaintiff for a surgery/procedure they never have any intention of receiving.

If you do not work in this field, you may not realize that a Plaintiff is directed to certain providers. They continue to treat the Plaintiff based on the Plaintiff's subjective pain complaints. That's right, the person who stands to profit from the lawsuit drives the medical treatment as long as still "in pain." The Plaintiff's word that he was not hurt before, and is hurt after, the accident are also accepted by the providers, unless they happen to have prior treatment in the same area.

Eventually, a doctor, life care planner and accountant get together and estimate the future medical needs. This becomes "evidence" in front of a jury, or for use at a settlement conference. Often, the future medicals total in the millions of dollars. Once paid, all treatment stops. Plaintiff's counsel gets 40% of the future medical treatment, and Plaintiff pockets the rest. It is amazing how often a settlement or verdict results in a miraculous cure.

A system that only doles out payment as procedures are performed would disincentivize this behavior, and remove Plaintiff's counsel's cut. It would also have a benefit by making sure money is there if future procedures are actually needed.

You may not realize it, but this process already occurs with the PCF. I am curious to hear why it would not be better then the current system.

Does the defendant get to hire a doctor, life care planner, and economist to give their version of what the number should be?

And then a jury makes a decision on who they believe?

I’m for less bureaucracy and red tape. What you’re proposing puts a Plaintiff in the position of begging for money a jury has awarded to them after hearing competing evidence. What if I get a health condition and I’m no longer a surgical candidate? What if I decide I don’t want to risk the surgery? Why should I have to beg for money a jury has already awarded?

And if juries are such wild cards that this is happening so much as to be a problem, why on earth do you want more cases going to a jury?

quote:

---

Medicare already requires this under certain circumstances if the injured person is on Medicare or if he/she will be on Medicare within a certain period of time after a settlement.

It's called a Medicare set-aside account.

---

This does not actually have to be paid at the time of settlement. The only requirement is the tort feasor or their attorney would have to be responsible for the required amount if the injured party actually seeks further treatment after the settlement. The plaintiff attorneys are reluctant to agree to this. In larger settlement an annuity can be purchased to facilitate the resolution.

JBE has turned the virus loose on oil companies! He personally is going to run off our biggest job creator

quote:

---

Heaven forbid you try and bring in a biomechanics expert, Plaintiff's counsel does not like objective evidence.

---

Does the Plaintiff not get to hire a biomechanics expert, too? And presumably the jury would get to hear from both, no?

Is your problem really just that juries are not siding with insurance companies enough?

(no message)