- 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
0
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:10 pm to Boston911
1. Stop electing judges. The only lawyers who make significant enough money to get judges elected are plaintiffs attorneys. Therefore, the judges themselves are either plaintiffs attorneys who want a stable retirement or they are owned by plaintiffs attorneys bc they were wholly incompetent lawyers and could do nothing else. The fact that Don Johnson was re-elected by such a huge margin in EBR Parish yesterday is a prime example. People who aren’t attorneys have no idea about what attys do, and no way to assess what a negative influence this is on an entire branch of government. The result is that the branch that is supposed to impartially resolve disputes is resolving disputes in a way that ensures they get funded to reelection.
2. If we’re going to continue to elect judges - Reduce the jurisdictional threshold for jury trials. Defendants invariably pay for jury trials anyway. There would be no extra financial burden on the judiciary. The power to decide cases and dole out cash awards would be removed from elected judges, who are controlled by one type of litigant, and whose rulings benefit only one type of lawyer.
3. Change the rules of professional conduct in Louisiana so that attorneys are prohibited from referring clients to physicians. Attys pick doctors that will testify in such a way to maximize their cash payment. It’s gross.
4. Change the collateral source rule to prohibit introduction of evidence regarding what medical expenses are paid by health insurance; and to produce evidence of what medical insurance reimburses doctors
5. Change the rules governing of professional conduct of physicians prohibiting plaintiffs attys to act as guarantors of payment of medical expenses
6. Capping damages under the law is unfair and impossible. You need to end the unholy alliance btwn judges, doctors and lawyers that allow a minor fender bender to become a six figure proposition.
7. Eliminate Direct Action against insurers. Litigants, not insurance companies need to be making decisions in litigation.
2. If we’re going to continue to elect judges - Reduce the jurisdictional threshold for jury trials. Defendants invariably pay for jury trials anyway. There would be no extra financial burden on the judiciary. The power to decide cases and dole out cash awards would be removed from elected judges, who are controlled by one type of litigant, and whose rulings benefit only one type of lawyer.
3. Change the rules of professional conduct in Louisiana so that attorneys are prohibited from referring clients to physicians. Attys pick doctors that will testify in such a way to maximize their cash payment. It’s gross.
4. Change the collateral source rule to prohibit introduction of evidence regarding what medical expenses are paid by health insurance; and to produce evidence of what medical insurance reimburses doctors
5. Change the rules governing of professional conduct of physicians prohibiting plaintiffs attys to act as guarantors of payment of medical expenses
6. Capping damages under the law is unfair and impossible. You need to end the unholy alliance btwn judges, doctors and lawyers that allow a minor fender bender to become a six figure proposition.
7. Eliminate Direct Action against insurers. Litigants, not insurance companies need to be making decisions in litigation.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:14 pm to bmy
quote:
JBE should do this either way
But he won’t. Which is why he was re-elected, and how he was funded.
Democrats are truly sheep.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:16 pm to Boston911
I’m a trial lawyer. But I’m for some tort reform. Injured people should have access to the courts. Also can people who injure others because they’re texting while driving or drunk driving, should face stiff civil liability.
There needs to be stricter control over some judges.
There needs to be something done about truly frivolous suits. I’ve seen worse frivolous lawsuit abuse outside of the tort realm. I’ve seen lawyers who bring extremely frivolous business claims to trigger expensive (in time and money) discovery as a form of extortion. It is MUCH worse in the commercial litigation and construction fields than in the injury field.
There needs to be stricter control over some judges.
There needs to be something done about truly frivolous suits. I’ve seen worse frivolous lawsuit abuse outside of the tort realm. I’ve seen lawyers who bring extremely frivolous business claims to trigger expensive (in time and money) discovery as a form of extortion. It is MUCH worse in the commercial litigation and construction fields than in the injury field.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:19 pm to Parmen
[img]You a trial lawyer?[/img]
Yes. I am. But I find it interesting that the common man would vote against their own interests. Tort reform ONLY benefits insurance companies and corporations.
Limiting the Louisiana citizen’s right to recovery or access to the court system seems insane to me. All in an effort to stop advertising lawyers.
The same amount of cases exist now as they have in the past. It’s just that instead of being spread around through a thousand law firms, they are concentrated in a hundred firms.
People think tort reform only stops auto accidents. It doesn’t. It will bleed into every aspect of the judicial system, affecting every case.
For example, lowering the jury threshold benefits no one but the insurance companies or corporations. Anyone who proposes it doesn’t care about you, the average resident. Right now it takes an average of 3 years to litigate a case, including a 2 year waiting period just to get a jury trial date. Lowering the threshold would increase those times. Every insurance company would request a trial by jury even for small cases, knowing trial dates would be pushed back an average of 5 years from the date of the pretrial conference. So cases could take 8 years. This would cause a severe burden on the plaintiff, especially those that have been disabled and unable to work. They would squeeze them out to accept a low settlement offer because the insurance companies can afford to wait, the average person may not be able to. These jury delays would affect any case trying to get on a trial docket including contract disputes, property damage claims, debt collections, etc. The judges are against it because it would clog up the docket. As planned by the insurance companies.
That’s just one example.
People that are pro tort reform usually have not been involved in a catastrophic tort case and believe they or their family members will never be involved in one. It can and does happen to anyone, no matter your party affiliation. Don’t give up you or your family’s rights just because you hate the billboards. I hate them too. But I’m on the front line and you should see what these insurance companies will do to a severely injured person in an effort to save a buck. It’s disgusting really.
Are there lawsuit abuses? Sure, but not as many as there are legitimate claims that need to be heard. Let the judicial system weed out the frivolous claims, they usually do. Don’t let the legislature, paid by insurance companies, legislate your rights away.
Yes. I am. But I find it interesting that the common man would vote against their own interests. Tort reform ONLY benefits insurance companies and corporations.
Limiting the Louisiana citizen’s right to recovery or access to the court system seems insane to me. All in an effort to stop advertising lawyers.
The same amount of cases exist now as they have in the past. It’s just that instead of being spread around through a thousand law firms, they are concentrated in a hundred firms.
People think tort reform only stops auto accidents. It doesn’t. It will bleed into every aspect of the judicial system, affecting every case.
For example, lowering the jury threshold benefits no one but the insurance companies or corporations. Anyone who proposes it doesn’t care about you, the average resident. Right now it takes an average of 3 years to litigate a case, including a 2 year waiting period just to get a jury trial date. Lowering the threshold would increase those times. Every insurance company would request a trial by jury even for small cases, knowing trial dates would be pushed back an average of 5 years from the date of the pretrial conference. So cases could take 8 years. This would cause a severe burden on the plaintiff, especially those that have been disabled and unable to work. They would squeeze them out to accept a low settlement offer because the insurance companies can afford to wait, the average person may not be able to. These jury delays would affect any case trying to get on a trial docket including contract disputes, property damage claims, debt collections, etc. The judges are against it because it would clog up the docket. As planned by the insurance companies.
That’s just one example.
People that are pro tort reform usually have not been involved in a catastrophic tort case and believe they or their family members will never be involved in one. It can and does happen to anyone, no matter your party affiliation. Don’t give up you or your family’s rights just because you hate the billboards. I hate them too. But I’m on the front line and you should see what these insurance companies will do to a severely injured person in an effort to save a buck. It’s disgusting really.
Are there lawsuit abuses? Sure, but not as many as there are legitimate claims that need to be heard. Let the judicial system weed out the frivolous claims, they usually do. Don’t let the legislature, paid by insurance companies, legislate your rights away.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:20 pm to LSU5508
The root of the problem is electing these trial attorneys to state Senate and Rep positions. The Senate Judiciary Committee is made up of nothing but trial attorneys. This is the committee where sensible tort reform bills go to die before they can even make it to the floor. It’s beyond a laughing stock at this point. Something needs to change.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:21 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
People that are pro tort reform usually have not been involved in a catastrophic tort case and believe they or their family members will never be involved in one.
ONE HUNDRED PERCENT ACCURATE!
The way we try cases and who we try them to needs to be reformed. But the threat of heavy damages DOES keep people responsible.
I believe in the jury system- so long as the refs are honest.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:22 pm to Parmen
quote:
Tort reform is dead.
It was never alive.
The legislature is full of lawyers, they're never going to reform the stranglehold they hold over every aspect of politics/business/education in LA.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:24 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Wednesday
Holy shite, spoken like a true defense attorney. Please tell us which insurance company you work for?
Lower jury thresholds?
End collateral source?
It’s too obvious. My guess is USAA or State Farm. Oh wait, in house for Allstate! Amirite?
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:24 pm to TheFranchise
quote:
truly frivolous suits
Hurt good trial lawyers and people who do need to be able to rely on the court system.
These make me want to vomit.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:25 pm to berrycajun
quote:
They were afraid it would be lowered if Rispone won, and it’s already very hard to win med mal cases at all because they have to go before a medical review panel of doctors in the same field as the defendant, and most of those doctors don’t want to admit a “colleague” of their’s screwed up.
Au contraire. In a state like Louisiana do you think it’s possible for a doctor to get a fair trial with a jury of their peers? Absolutely not. The medical review panel is the closest thing
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:26 pm to oilattorney4lsu
I don’t work for insurance companies.
It amazes me that so called “trial attys” are so scared to try a case to a jury. What makes you so scared of a jury?
PS I actually agreed with most of your post. But the game isn’t fair when one side owns the refs. Which is why I think the threshold should be lowered.
PSS And I only think the jurisdictional limit should be reduced if we continue to elect judges. That way at least there’s some kind of reality check on the judges.
It amazes me that so called “trial attys” are so scared to try a case to a jury. What makes you so scared of a jury?
PS I actually agreed with most of your post. But the game isn’t fair when one side owns the refs. Which is why I think the threshold should be lowered.
PSS And I only think the jurisdictional limit should be reduced if we continue to elect judges. That way at least there’s some kind of reality check on the judges.
This post was edited on 11/17/19 at 12:35 pm
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:27 pm to Boston911
Texas passed tort reform years ago and it worked. It drastically reduced insurance rates.
Just for fun i went to a insurance agent (major ccompany) in The Woodlands a few months ago and told them I was moving to Texas (wishful thinking) and gave them my insurance card and info. I was asking for car insurance only. I have car and home currently together in Louisiana so I get a discounts. I gave them an address nearby (friends house) for quote purposes.
The rate was a almost half. Same vehicle same coverage less the house/auto discount.
It is a legal way of stealing your money and giving it to their supporters.
Just for fun i went to a insurance agent (major ccompany) in The Woodlands a few months ago and told them I was moving to Texas (wishful thinking) and gave them my insurance card and info. I was asking for car insurance only. I have car and home currently together in Louisiana so I get a discounts. I gave them an address nearby (friends house) for quote purposes.
The rate was a almost half. Same vehicle same coverage less the house/auto discount.
It is a legal way of stealing your money and giving it to their supporters.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:31 pm to Wednesday
I don’t think he is scared of a jury but he’s already made his point that It could take you eight years to get to one. That is not fair to anyone but the corporations.
This post was edited on 11/17/19 at 12:33 pm
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:33 pm to Boston911
institute loser pays
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:33 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
Tort reform ONLY benefits insurance companies and corporations.
100% false. Exactly something a trial lawyer would say
Give me one logical reason our Seatbelt Gag Order should not be lifted?
Oh your client was not wearing their seatbelt as required by law during an accident? Yeah, let’s keep that disclosed so we can still go after that big settlement.
What about Medical Bill Secrecy? Of course plaintiff attorneys only want the juries to know the original astronomical medical billings before they’ve been negotiated down by health insurance companies.
Lol what joke!
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:34 pm to Wednesday
quote:
Why are you so scared of a jury?
Nice try. I’m not.
But just this month, when I get a jury trial date for November of 2021 while my client can’t work because she lost her leg in a head on collision, it pisses me off to think it could be 2023 or 2024 with a lower threshold.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:39 pm to Wednesday
quote:
But the game isn’t fair when one side owns the refs. Which is why I think the threshold should be lowered.
What venue do you practice in?
Because most of my work is in the 19th JDC and half the judges are conservative - Morvant, Caldwell, Kelley, Moore. (Yes I know Caldwell is gone as of this month)
You act like all the judges are appointed by trial lawyers and liberals. They aren’t. They are elected. They are conservative. Even Caldwell, the worst judge to plaintiffs, was against lowering the jury thresholds.
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:44 pm to Parmen
quote:
Nothing. Trial lawyers will continue to run this state. Tort reform is dead
It's the best way in Louisiana for people with average IQs at best to be able to legally afford multi-million dollar mansions
Posted on 11/17/19 at 12:45 pm to oilattorney4lsu
quote:
For example, lowering the jury threshold benefits no one but the insurance companies or corporations. Anyone who proposes it doesn’t care about you, the average resident. Right now it takes an average of 3 years to litigate a case, including a 2 year waiting period just to get a jury trial date. Lowering the threshold would increase those times. Every insurance company would request a trial by jury even for small cases, knowing trial dates would be pushed back an average of 5 years from the date of the pretrial conference. So cases could take 8 years. This would cause a severe burden on the plaintiff, especially those that have been disabled and unable to work. They would squeeze them out to accept a low settlement offer because the insurance companies can afford to wait, the average person may not be able to. These jury delays would affect any case trying to get on a trial docket including contract disputes, property damage claims, debt collections, etc. The judges are against it because it would clog up the docket. As planned by the insurance companies.
How do the other states manage?
Louisiana threshold is $50k. Next highest state is $15k. In 36 states it is $0.
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News