First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers

[bonwich]

(No offense, Nark. Nice neighborhood you live in, B-Roy .)

College baseball player sues after eye injury

Brad Joseph Daubach, a baseball player for St. Louis University, filed suit against the college this week in court in Belleville for an eye injury he says was caused by an errant ball.

The suit says Daubach was warming up for a game on campus March 27 when a ball hit by a teammate in a nearby batting cage penetrated the cage's safety net and hit him in the eye.

The suit charges negligence by the university. It was filed by lawyer Bernard Ysursa of Belleville. It asks for over $50,000 plus costs. University officials could not be reached for comment. The suit did not indicate how it came to be filed in St. Clair County Circuit Court.

(P-D, 6/5/04)

[tseugnekillib]

Perhaps his jury award or settlement will cover his student loans! Daubach evidently missed most of his senior season, but he did hit a three-run homer in the Billikens seasoning ending game.

[billiken_roy]

i dont know the daubach's, but i do know mr ysursa. quite the attorney. my guess is slu needs to make an offer. bernie doesnt lose.

[Basketbill]

Venue?? why should it be filed in illinois when it occurred in Missouri.

What exactly are the damages to this kid since he apparently has good enough sight to hit a homerun in the last game.

[AlumniFan]

C'mon guys. Plaintiff/personal injury attorneys (to be distinguished from ALL other attorneys) are just trying to help out the less fortunate. They're not in it for the money. That's why they only take 40% of the proceeds from any awards. Just because most class action claimants will only receive something like 1/10,000th of what the winning attorneys receive is no reason to castigate these fine citizens for being greedy. They are righting society's horrible ills. Like the case that stopped that evil empire (Sears) which was destroying people's lives by improperly charging them for tire rotation services. And those fine attorneys thought so much of their clients that they made sure the class action plaintiffs received vouchers for future tire rotations so they wouldn't even have to actually take a check to the bank. And all the attorneys received was tens of millions. Wow. I hope when I grow up I can be part of the plaintiffs bar.

(You know who should be most upset about this stuff? The other attorneys because the plaintiff/PI attorneys give attorneys in general a bad name.)

[davidnark]

I agree 100%. The personal injury lawyers give a mostly decent profession a real bad name. The problem is the powerful trial lawyer lobby. Not only does this lobby squash all reasonable tort reform proposals, it ensures that there are too many law schools and too many law students. Too many of the bottom tier law grads end up chasing ambulances, hanging out in hospital lobbys, and running bad commercials on public access cable channels. Of course, there are some notable exceptions to this generalization.

[SLUMS81]

Newspapers love to publicize the amount of money that the self-appointed "victim" feels entitled to. Rarely do we see headlines about pesonal injury lawsuits which fail. We are guaranteed to read about ridiculous jury awards, and the triumphant plaintiff's attorney sending "messages" to evil corporations, cities, institutions, etc. It is not going to end anytime soon.

[jjray]

Missouri has made significant strides in tort reform (although many states have been more aggressive in this area than Missouri). The fact that medical malpractice rates have not come down even though caps have been put on "pain and suffering" awards in Missouri points to problems in the insurance industry IMHO. Illinois (with special attention to Madison and St. Claire counties) needs to get with the program and legislate some protection against excessive verdicts (especially verdicts involving awards for non-economic loss). They also need to reform their class action procedures IMHO.

There are 2 sides to every issue and the truth usually lies somewhere in between.

[billiken_roy]

to this suit is that slu is forced to at least bring the level of their baseball facility and equipment up to a level that is safe.

[MUTGR]

Doesn't SLU have a Parks College campus or facility in St. Clair County? If so, that probably answers your first question.

[Old Band Bass Player]

jjray wrote: "The fact that medical malpractice rates have not come down even though caps have been put on "pain and suffering" awards in Missouri points to problems in the insurance industry IMHO."

jjray: Just so you know, there are no caps in Missouri (or Illinois for that matter). Previously, caps were in place, but were abolished by massive awards by judges and trial lawyers. The republican Missouri legislature has sponsored two bills in the last year(the latest one HB#1304, previously SB #1301) that would address tort reform and put new caps in place that couldn't be abolished, but Governor Holden vetoed both of them. Actually, the Missouri congressman who sponsored HB#1304 contacted Holden several times to try to negotiate a Bill that wouldn't be vetoed. Holden refused to meet with him, and instead, guess who Holden sent to negotiate the Bill...that's right...representatives from the American Trial Lawyers Association. (This was in the Post-Dispatch).

While one of the problems is insurance reform, the fact is that caps work. States that have caps in place (California, Indiana, Wisconsin) have no problem with medical malpractice, while states that don't (Missouri, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania) are in the middle of malpractice nightmares.

I know two neurosurgeons, one in Wisconsin and one in Illinois, both who have never been sued. The one in Wisconsin (a state with tort reform) pays $35,000 for malpractice, while the one in Illinois pays $300,000 for himself, $400,000 for his partner. Those two guys in Illinois have to write a check for $60,000 every MONTH just to pay the malpractice. I know others in St. Louis who are paying $250,000 for malpractice insurance, without prior lawsuits against them. Six neurosurgeons have left the St. Louis area in the last year, moving to other states or retiring early because of the malpractice climate in Missouri. This won't affect you, until you get into a car accident and need a neurosurgeon, or until you have a brain tumor. And right now, there are no neurosurgeons in Illinois south of Springfield, because of the debacle that is happening in Madison County courts. Once again, this could affect you.

The thing that people don't realize is that tort reform doesn't just mean medical malpractice...it means all injury lawsuits, and the problem is the awards for pain and suffering. For example, if you run over your neighbor's 10 year-old kid's bicycle, and he is distraught, his parents can sue you for the cost of the bike, and can also sue you for millions for "pain and suffering". Unless you have an umbrella liability policy, you'll be paying this out of pocket. And forget about the costs to cover your defense. If you don't think that it can affect you, you're wrong.

I was in the Band for 9 years, and am now doing a residency in a neighboring state. I have another two years to go, and my hope was to return to St. Louis, maybe be in the Band again, but in the current climate, I doubt that it will be possible. I'll probably have to go to a state that has tort reform. My suggestion for everybody who wants to continue to have access to medical care in Missouri is to vote for republican Matt Blunt for Governor this November. As long as Holden is in office, there will be no tort reform in Missouri.

For other examples of the medical malpractice crisis and ways to help out, check out the website www.protectpatientsnow.org which is run by the Doctors for Medical Liability Reform. Call or email your congressman, and please vote. Sorry to get preachy, but right now, the lawyers and legislators are limiting my options for where I can practice, especially in Missouri.

[jjray]

I believe you are misinformed Band, here is the statute limiting non-economic damage recovery in Missouri to $350,000 per occurence (adjusted for cost of living from the date of passage, I believe the cap is now over $500k):

http://www.moga.state.mo.us/statutes/c500-599/5380000210.htm

For another reference, see here:

http://www.namic.org/reports/tortReform/stateMO.asp

Unless it has been repealed in the last few months and I missed it, this statute is still in force. Can and should Missouri do more in the area of health-care tort reform? I agree "yes". But there are other factors (most notably issues with insurance companies) that must be addressed to bring down malpractice rates.

[bonwich]

I'll see if I can find anything to cite the exact ruling, but this says that there is no effective cap in Missouri right now due to a court decision:

(P-D, 9/12/03. Italics mine.)

VETO ON MALPRACTICE-RATES BILL IS UPHELD MEASURE WOULD HAVE RESTORED CAP ON AWARDS FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING

By Bill Bell Jr. Post-Dispatch Jefferson City Bureau

Doctors got no help Thursday from the Missouri Senate.

Hundreds of physicians flooded the halls of the state Capitol in a last-minute push to persuade lawmakers to override Gov. Bob Holden's veto of a bill they said would help curb medical malpractice insurance rates. But the override effort failed on a 21-12 vote. The measure needed 23 votes in the Senate before it could move to the House.

Fred DeFeo, a physician and president of the Missouri State Medical Association, said that probably means doctors will have to wait until next year to get something through the Legislature.

DeFeo has been involved in negotiations with the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys and other groups on the issue. Lawmakers as well as business and insurance groups have been kept out of the talks.

DeFeo said he hopes an agreement still can be reached.

Doctors such as DeFeo are facing skyrocketing medical malpractice rates. The increases are forcing some doctors - especially specialists in obstetrics or neurology - to retire early or leave the state in search of better rates.

Insurance companies have pointed to a court decision that effectively did away with caps on "noneconomic" damages, what is sometimes called pain and suffering.

The bill would have restored the cap. But critics said business groups added too many provisions to the bill, which would have hurt victims' rights and given too many protections to nursing homes and other businesses. The bill also would have limited where civil lawsuits can be filed.

Opponents, mostly Democrats, pointed to these extra protections as reasons why they could not support the bill. Senate Democrats who broke ranks with the governor and supported the veto override were Wayne Goode of Pasadena Hills and Charles Wheeler of Kansas City. The only Republican to vote against the override was Sarah Steelman of Rolla.

Among the disappointed doctors was Dennis Mollman of Chesterfield. Mollman, a neurosurgeon, said his malpractice rates would be $460,000 starting Oct. 17 - up from $64,000 this year. The increase has Mollman considering a move to Kansas City, Kan., or to Wausau, Wis., where he has been quoted a rate of about $10,000.

Mollman said doctors in his specialty are commonly sued one and a half times a year. He said he has had 12 claims in 16 years; 10 have been dropped as frivolous, and two have been settled.

Frivolous lawsuits cost money because insurance companies base rates in part on how many times a doctor is sued and not just the outcome of the lawsuit, Mollman said.

"I wouldn't be here if it wasn't hitting a crisis," he said.

[jjray]

Ahhh, now I see the confusion. Bonwich, this article you cite is misleading. The non-economic damage for medical malpractice cap was never overturned by the courts (nor repealed by the legislature). What did happen was a court loosely construed the statute and allowed the cap to be applied more than once against multiple defendants for the same injury. Here is a good summary of the bill that was vetoed:

"After legislation passed both houses in Missouri the Governor vetoed it. As passed, the bill tightens venue in all tort cases, restricts joint and several liability, lowers the cap on non-economic damages from $565,00 to $400,000 and eliminates the inflation adjustment, overturns the Missouri Supreme Court case that led to multiple caps applying to one case, caps non-economic damages in trauma cases to $200,000, and requires periodic payment of future medical damages. In his veto message Governor Holden stated that he would sign a bill that includes insurance reform, lowering the cap on non-economic damages, overturning the Supreme Court case and requiring affidavits of merit. The Governor wants a bill that is limited solely to medical liability reform. The bill passed easily, but was just short in each house of the votes needed to override a veto."

http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/stateleg/apr04.htm

The govenor should have signed it IMHO. What the public seems to have missed in the particianship on the issue is that Missouri has many tort reforms measures in place already, [a href=http://www.namic.org/reports/tortReform/stateMO.asp]see this link[/a]. These reforms that are almost a decade old but have not helped the doctors even as the size and number of jury awards have dropped. Why? I'm not necessarily against additional reforms to reign in tort litigation but just wish there to be an honest debate.

[bonwich]

did away with caps."

Here's a 2002 summary of the case in question (P-D, 9/3/02). I'm reading this as a lay person, but it sure sounds like the court decisions clearly allow defendants (or their lawyers) to daisy-chain the liability and circumvent the caps. The end result is that $2.76 million merely comes out of several entities' insurance settlements, rather than just the one. But it's still $2.76M in payout that goes into the overall pool against which premiums and some margin must be collected.

WINNER OF MALPRACTICE SUIT COULD END UP OWING THE HOSPITAL THAT LOST THE CASE

VICTIM NOW HELPS DEFEND DOCTORS WHO TREATED HIM

By Judith VandeWater Of The Post-Dispatch

The estate of a St. Charles man who suffered permanent brain damage because of medical negligence is paying to defend the radiology group that a jury said was largely responsible for his disability.

The financial stakes are high for Matthew Scott, the young man who won a $2.76 million judgment against SSM Health Care of St. Louis. In February 2001, a St. Louis Circuit Court jury found SSM liable for the negligence of its emergency room doctor and vicariously liable for the actions of a private practice radiologist at its St. Charles hospital. The verdict was upheld in January by the Eastern District of the Missouri Court of Appeals. This spring, the Missouri Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

The decision stands, but the legal jousting continues.

Last year, SSM sued the 14 partners of Radiologic Imaging Consultants LLP. The group has provided radiology services at SSM St. Joseph Health Center in St. Charles for more than 60 years, and the suit is a major ###### in physician-hospital relations at that institution.

SSM's suit in St. Charles County Circuit Court seeks to recoup $2.068 million of the malpractice judgment won by Scott and his mother, Josephine Scott in St. Louis. If the radiologists lose to SSM, they will go after the Scotts to pay the judgment because the mother, father and estate of the son indemnified the medical group in exchange for a cash settlement on a related claim.

Michael Stokes, one of the attorneys representing the Scotts in the settlement with the radiologists and at trial against SSM, said Missouri's health care settlement statute protects the radiologists from the hospital's suit and so ultimately it will protect the Scotts.

"The Scotts aren't on the hook for anything. We knew from reading the statute that we could indemnify the radiologists and it would be meaningless," Stokes said.

Not everyone sees the issue as cut and dried. The verdict in the malpractice case has unsettling implications for Missouri's hospitals and doctors. It makes hospitals legally vulnerable for the actions of independent physicians who provide specialty services under contact in the hospital, and it ostensibly lifts a statutory cap on damages for a patient's pain and suffering that had stood since 1986.

Physicians are also unnerved by the prospect that having settled a malpractice allegation brought by a patient, they could still be exposed to a related claim such as that made by SSM.

SSM and Radiologic Imaging declined to be interviewed for this story because of the pending suit. Josephine Scott also declined through her attorney, W.T. Nolan, to be interviewed. She administers her son's financial affairs as conservator of his probated estate.

As a result of the Scott decision, St. Joseph Health Center is asking its hospital-based specialists who contract to provide services to the hospital - Radiologic Imaging, Allegiant Pathology and First Capitol Anesthesia Group - for malpractice insurance waivers. The hospital wants the protection against any future vicarious liability that stems from physician malpractice. A concerned medical staff at St. Joseph has set a meeting with hospital administrators later this month to discuss the fallout from the Scott decision.

[rest of article snipped for length]

[jjray]

>>The article clearly states "effectively did away with caps."<<

IMHO, the quoted statement is inaccurate. The caps are still there but, in some cases, can be doubled. The statute reads that each defendant should have its liability capped for each occurence. The implication of the Scott case is that if a defendant is itself liable and has brought in an independent contractor who has also independently committed professional negligence in the care of the patient, then in some cases the negligence of the I/C can be imputted to the first defendant (such as a hospital) effectively adding up to 2 caps. It's a hole that broadens the effect of the statute but does not "effectively do away" it. I'm not suggesting remove the caps nor would I oppose lowering the existing cap nor prohibiting stacking as called for in the bill vetoed by Govenor Holden.

Here is a link to a study that talks about needing more than damage caps to achieve a reduction in malpractice rates:

http://www.unf.edu/thefloridacenter/press_...alpractice2.DOC

[AlumniFan]

Did you know some of these personal injury/plaintiff attorneys employee large numbers of telemarketers, working all day and night in little cubicles to call people whose names are culled from the newspaper, internet, etc. that in some way, shape, or form have what the attorneys consider a "case"? Apparently, they work to create lawsuits, often "selling" the "victim" on the concept that they have been "wronged" and should receive compensation. I was dumbstruck when I learned this. I also learned that some of these attorneys have doctors IN THEIR OFFICES that do nothing more than testify and evaluate clients.

Is this what our country has come to in OUR legal system?