During the Vice Presidential Debate, Paul Ryan (Republican Vice-Presidential candidate) brought up a story about how caring Mitt Romney is. His example was a huge car accident that severely damaged a family. Mitt’s response, according to Ryan, was to go see the family and agree to pay for the kids’ college educations. That is truly a noble and caring thing, and something that very few people are able to offer individuals they barely know. What I find striking about it is that it is being said by a man, Paul Ryan, who has supported tort reform. He uses an example of someone’s philanthropy to help those damaged by a car collision, but yet repeatedly has voted to limit the liability of those responsible. Why would you want to cap the fault of those individuals and hope that there is a Mitt Romney around to make things better for their overall losses? If you can agree that the children will lose their college education as a result of the collision, shouldn’t that be something that you should look to the at-fault party for?
In comparison, Vice President Joe Biden explained his own history and the tragic example of the loss of his wife and daughter in a car collision. Both before that and ever since, then Senator and later Vice President Joe Biden has always fought for the protection of individuals’ rights and against the capping of damages on those responsible.
This is to say nothing of Representative Ryan’s supposed ongoing support of the U.S. Constitution at the same time that he absolutely ignores the 7th Amendment and individuals’ rights to a full redress in a civil trial.
This is just one of the many examples of how voting in favor of big tax donors, big campaign donors, and big business special interests cloud the judgment and logic of these “representatives.”
A founding partner with Bradshaw & Bryant, Mike Bryant has always fought to find justice for his clients—knowing that legal troubles, both personal injury and criminal, can be devastating for a family. Voted a Top 40 Personal Injury "Super Lawyer" multiple years, Mr. Bryant has also been voted one of the Top 100 Minnesota "Super Lawyers" four times.
Ofcourse lets not forget the largest special interest of them all, the trial lawyers! Yep, trial lawyers own the Democratic Party. It is why we meer mortals have not been able to get sensible malpractice reform thru Congress. In medical malpractice cases, plaintiff attorneys lose 80% of the time, a failure rate unmatched in American Industry. Keep on contributing to the Democratic Party, Mike, you gotta have them to support your fees.
The "largest one"? Not even close. It's your usual crap Dr Cox. You write this like you aren't a doctor and you are just some average consumer. No the person that died and you lied to their family was the consumer.
There used to be many Republican trial lawyers, In fact in the past they were welcomed in the party. But, attacking lawyers and preventing big business from responsibility became a great way to raise money for Bush/Rove types.
Please take your angry rants somewhere else.
The American Association for Justice (Formerly the American Trial Lawyers Association) gave $37,047,780 in campaign contributions from 1989-2012 primarily to Democrats (88%) so that they could keep their cushy fraudulent malpractice litigation system greased up. How else can you explain Democrats turning a blind eye to trial attorneys 80% failure rate at trial and screwing poor patients out of 50-60% and more of any aware they win after dragging the poor patient thru endless years of litigation. So do you tell your clients, Mikey, "If we go to trial, we will lose 80% of the time and the other 20% of the time, I will take over half or all of the settlement for my fees. Are you honest and tell your clients that Mike?
Now I would like to help all those poor dumb plaintiff attorneys out there who are losing 80% of their cases with a primer that I am working on called, "How to do Malpractice Law Gooder" A primer for malpractice attorneys. Chapter One - -Basic Tort Law. For there to be a legitimate malpractice case there are two essential elements: There has to be negligence and the negligence has to be the proximate cause of the patient's injury. Plaintiff attorneys frequently miss one of these two essential components of a successful malpractice case. One pt had bilateral renal cell cancers, one 5 cm in size and the other one 5 mm in size. The big one was removed with a nephrectomy and the little one on the other kidney was missed. A year later, during a routine followup CT scan, the 5 mm renal tumor had grown to 10 mm. The lawyer and patient sued. The 10 mm tumor was successfully removed and this patient with bilateral renal cell cancer ended up two years later with one functioning kidney minus the small cancer and was doing fine. (Pt wanted to sue because he had to go thru two operations and his family had fly to Texas and watch his kids for a week.) Case dismissed. Lesson, just because there is negligence does not necessarily mean there is a bad result or that there should be recovery. The patients renal function was tenuous at the first operation and if the smaller tumor had been removed at that time, the patient could have lost kidney function in both kidneys. He ended up with a good result, and probably would have been treated the same way had the smaller tumor been initially detected.
wow you are filled with venom tonight. Drinking a lot?
Another example of a common plaintiff attorney malpractice suit is the woman who had 3 tiny microcalcifications in her breast of her prior mammogram and a year later has 7 microcalcifications. O.K., she had the 7 microcalcifications biopsied and they were cancer and the three microcalcifications noted the year before were also cancer. So the woman would have had a lumpectomy and radiation therapy for the 3 microcalcifications and will have the same treatment for the 7 micros. Pts like this frequently come to the lawyer hoping to hit the jackpot and dumb plaintiff attorneys take these cases. It is questionable whether there was negligence, but even if you get past that hurdle, there are no damages. Yet I have seen plaintiff attorneys take these cases and lose big time. Don't be a dummy.
Dr Cox this comment has nothing to do with the topic. Are you lost? The offensiveness of your attacks on consumers is very sad.
Mike- -mammography is the most litiginous area in medicine because 75% of the time when docs recognize an increase in microcalcifications, they were present (and less obvious) on the prior mammogram.I am now continuing my primer for plaintiff attorneys on "How to do Malpractice Law Gooder" The next chapter is Approach to the Malpractice Client. There are three types of patients who want to sue docs. People who don't want to pay for their medical care. People who want to hit the jackpot. People who have had a bad result. Attorneys should dismiss the first two groups right away. Only a very small subset of people with a bad result have a legitimate case. I sat on a hospital PEER review committee and I saw a lot of bad results. It was exceedingly rare to see true medical malpractice cause the bad result. 99% of bad results were due to the disease process, co-morbid conditions, and patient non-compliance. But when that patient comes to the attorney, he will not say, "Doc told me I had a tumor in the colon and told me to have it taken out." The patient will say, "I had bleeding from the rectum and the doc ignored me." You have to do some research to see the truth. Sometimes just talking with the doc about the case will resolve the issue and you should attempt to do that before filing the malpractice suit.
Still lost. No understanding of the Minnesota system, with expert affidavit. Also no understanding of the number of cases that involve negligence but are fixed by good doctors.
For your next story tell us about the guy that was killed and his family was lied to. You contact them yet?
Mike's question about Affidavit of Merit is a great for the subject of the third chapter of "How to do Malpractice Law Gooder". Most plaintiff medical expert witness opinion is fraud! That is why plaintiff attorneys lose 80% of their cases that go to trial! The most knowledgeable person in that court room during a malpractice trial is the defendant doctor. If he is fighting the case, putting his assets on the line, he knows what he is doing and staistically, will probably win. Fraudulent plaintiff expert witness testimony will be easily exposed. Remember that medical experts are immune from subsequent litigation and will say anything to get you to pay them a fee. So you need to interview the expert witness carefully before you use them. Don't be a dummy like a recent case I was involved in where the plaintiff expert witness ended up supporting the defense and the plaintiff had to withdraw the witness. This expert was so convincing that the defense used the plaintiff's expert and read his deposition in court. After he lost the case the dumb plaintiff attorney tried to disqualify his own expert witness on appeal. This was a new low in legal intelligence!
Comments for this article are closed.