BabyCakes

Build a small staircase with books leading to a plastic bin. Sprinkle food up the stairs and then put a handful in the bin. The gerbil will be in the bin in the morning.

quote:

---

ut I’m sure some q tards who believe all those lies and fantasy will tell us how it’s gonna lead to mind control and microchipping and super time travel to see JFK jr.

---

I understand those at risk jumping in on the first round of the vaccine. I also understand those at low risk not wanting to subject themselves to a hastily prepared vaccine for a virus that his little chance of harming them.

It might surprise you to know that mistakes are routinely made in medicine. It was not that long ago that children were sprayed directly with DDT, or that pregnant women were assured thalidomide was safe.

Generally no, other then Dani Daniels

No they have gone and continue to go well. I do appreciate the personal attacks instead of discussing the proposal though.

It’s jumping through hoops to ask for money before a procedure? I’m not suggesting further approval or medical necessity. Simply suggesting actually having the procedure to get the money.

Once again, not trying to meet the red herring of claiming it has to lower rates. Simply trying to improve the system and protect the plaintiff.

My main concern is a plaintiff’s ability to pay for care a decade or more after a lawsuit, and after 40% has been taken away. This process works well in med mal with the PCF.

It’s pretty simple, when the time for another procedure hits in the life care plan, they go to the doctor that recommended it and have it scheduled. The doctor is then paid from the fund once it is performed. Benefits all really, except plaintiff attorneys I suppose.

I thought you guys were worried about your client’s best interest? Doesn’t this proposal help ensure their medical needs are met? You don’t really want to take 40% of funds someone needs for healthcare, right?

quote:

---

I must be doing something wrong. I welcome biomechanics testimony in my cases.

---

Sounds like maybe you have legitimate cases with significant damage to the vehicles. That is not what I have been seeing lately.

quote:

---

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

---

Often, they will split between a reasonable number and the inflated number, still resulting in far too high og an award.

quote:

---

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?

---

No, it simply requires a Plaintiff to have a surgery to be awarded future medicals. Future medicals is a special damage award. If a Plaintiff dies during a lawsuit, we do not award future medicals for surgeries he was unable to have.

General damages compensate for pain and suffering, etc. Future medicals are supposed to be for procedures the plaintiff will have. If the plaintiff does not have them, he should not receive them. Otherwise, it is just another general damage award.

quote:

---

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?

---

I have not asked for this in my post. I suppose those that want more juries are trying to decide between the lesser of two evils.

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.

The solution is simple. If you cannot afford the required paid leave, before the paid leave goes into effect, fire all of your employees.