Jury Damage Award Could Close California Healthcare Facilities
by Warner Todd HustonWhen companies are found to have violated regulations that govern their industry, is it right that a jury of non-experts can award damages the amount of which will wipe the company off the face of the earth? That is a question that has been raised in a case recently decided against Skilled Healthcare LLC of California.
A class action lawsuit (lawsuit info here) brought by trial lawyers was filed late last year against Skilled Healthcare of California claiming that the company had violated state regulations that stipulates that nursing homes must maintain 3.2 nursing hours per patient, per day (ppd). The lawsuit claimed that the nursing homes operated by Skilled Healthcare often did not meet the requirement.
Interestingly, there was never any claim from any patient that they’d been harmed or put in danger. Not a single patient claimed personal injury before these lawyers began to file their class action lawsuit.
After a six-month trial the jury decided that the company did violate the rules and awarded the plaintiffs $613 million in statutory damages and $58 million in restitutionary damages.
There is a problem with this award, however. The company only has borrowing credit of $94 million. If the company were to be held to this outrageously high award it would go bankrupt and would be forced to close its doors.
Not only that but some 32,000 people — patients/residents and healthcare workers alike — would lose their heatlhcare facilities and jobs if this award were enforced.
Does this make sense?
Now, I’ve looked at many stories about this lawsuit and cannot find any claims by the State of California that Skilled Healthcare LLC was found wanting during any of the many surprise inspections of the company’s 22 healthcare facilities. I have seen no evidence from state regulators that any citations were issued or that there has been any allegations that the nursing homes in question violated any statutes.
Skilled Healthcare has reported that it has passed all inspections. That’s notable because the healthcare industry in California is almost as highly regulated as the state’s nuclear power industry.
Yet six healthcare clients from Humbolt County, CA have been allowed the status for the levy of an award so great that it will wipe the corporation of the face of the earth?
The California Association of Health Facilities agrees that this lawsuit makes no sense. James Gomez, CEO and President of the CAHF, called the whole thing “outlandish.”
The July 6, 2010 verdict against Skilled Healthcare Group Inc. and subsidiary Skilled Healthcare LLC is outlandish, excessive and extreme. The $671 million award of damages is disproportionate to the facts of the case. It’s a by-product of a series of unprecedented and erroneous rulings of law by the trial judge, and a jury that applied the flawed rulings to the maximum extent. These maximum damages were applied over a six year period to every patient in the 22 skilled nursing facilities, regardless of whether they were named in the complaint. More importantly, the allegations specifically excluded any assertion of harm.
Gomez also laments that if the judgment stands the healthcare company will be forced to close its doors causing the loss of thousands of jobs and putting the healthcare of thousands of patients in jeopardy.
And Gomez also reports that Skilled Healthcare LLC is “widely regarded as a good provider of skilled nursing care in California and elsewhere.”
The case, now concluded, is going into a mediation phase and the company hopes that the award will be lowered to one it could actually pay instead of the punitive one that they now face.
In the end this trial is evidence that this country needs some major tort reform. Here we had a company that was going about its business, and by all accounts has a good reputation in its industry yet found itself with a multi-million dollar award levied against it because of some trial lawyers that went ambulance chasing to float a class action lawsuit. And now thousands of people’s healthcare and livelihood is in jeopardy.
What are all theses elderly patients supposed to do if the company is forced to fold? And what of all the jobs lost in this, one of the worst economies in decades?
If the company was violating state regulations on the required number of nursing staff to patient ratios, then, sure, the state should force it to comply with regulations. No one would deny that fines of some sort would legitimately be part of such a finding. But this $671 million award is not corrective, it is destructive.
And what unforeseen consequences might this award have in the healthcare industry throughout California and the rest of the country? Will it drive costs up? Will it cause smaller healthcare facilities to just close up shop for fear of giant, punitive awards for minor infractions? And what other industries might next be a target of this class action feeding frenzy?
Questions that we would not be faced with were it not for an out of control tort system.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Got a Tip?
95 Comments
Is it just me, or shouldn't a trial by one's peers in cases such as this be comprised of people who actually work in the industry? As stated in the article, this is going to destroy a lot of lives.
Maybe the rest of CA will flush down the toilet with it.
It's Freakin' Cali – home of the OJ Trial!!!!
I'm with Shakespeare on this – first kill all the lawyer (paraphrased).
I'd like to find out what kind of not only JURY stacking was done here, but judge bank account "padding". (Seriously there is something wrong with this case – I'm thinking there might be some lawyers that need to be in JAIL for fraud and extortion.)
these class action law suits are a joke. they convince a weak kneed judge of the status, then assume everybody in the class was screwed like one or two examples they cherry pick. the jury awards a god awful amount of money. the actual "victims" get a coupon, or a three ring circus of hoops to jump into, to even get some of the arwarded money. in the end, only the lawyers make big bucks, and move on to the next class action suit to file. no they may have put a business out of business, with no actual harmed victim ever coming forward. it's not like everybody in a nursing home wants to be there, and now they might have to be sent home, and now nobly will care for them.
Californians have to make a decision soon ,do you want to survive or become a third world enclave.
At least we have a great example of what advancing liberalism will get us.
This is nothing less than Legal System Cloward Piven strategy. If anyone questions the need for "universal tort reform" and the abolishment of "Universal Obamacare" before it gets deep roots in our America and begins killing innocent people in true eugenics/progressivism fashion – well – here ya go.
Why do otherwise sane people conduct business in California? Why? When will the citizens start fighting back?
Yo Petee. There's no home to which these people can go. This was their home and it was taken away by these self same lawyers. Maybe the residents and employees of the provider should sue the lawyers?
The only thing left is for that miserable state to break off and slide into the ocean….
Progress may create a lot of pain. All the patients will have to move. Some times stupid government doesn't learn until their is a disaster. There is no constitutional mandate that old folks get care. I visited my dad yesterday and read the skilled nursing annual report. They faced a 10% cut from Medicare this year. Why? Because Obama is in charge. He ordered 10% cut.
It would be OK with me if California had Senior care industry crumble. It would be a hassle, but California is too stupid to learn any other way.
3.2 hours per patient per day is stupid. Some need hardly any and others need more. That is like so many calories per person per day. People are unique. One size fits all is stupid.
Well, if you're going to be in the healthcare BUSINESS, you need to follow the law.
Sorry, but those MINIMUM standards of healthcare workers per patient are too low, IMO.
Now I understand that this means businesses that continue to fail to follow the guidelines go out of business, and people are inconvenienced because that health care isn't there, but it's not the government's fault for setting reasonable MINIMUM standards for health care facilities.
How much did the lawyers get?
Do they live in California?
They all get what they deserve in the end.
This was brought out in the Press years ago about a Specific Law Firm targeting any Company with lots of money and filing lawsuits against them even though the company(s) did nothing wrong and no person suffered any injury. Thier scheme was to demand a settlement (EXTORT) in lieu of the expense of defending the suit in Court. In the REAL WORLD some "injury" would be required to file suit but the DEMOCRAT CONTROLLED LEGISTATURE blocked correction of this action and allowed this malfeasence to continue. California, YOU VOTED THESE PEOPLE into office or you did not bother to vote. This is what you get……
Clear evidence that while tort reform is vital, reform of the judiciary and legislature is critical.
This decision is symptomatic of the out of touch mindset of all those in power in the former Golden State.
And the Lawers get 40%(?) of the entire settlement…….
A dedicated statist would say that $671 million is a minuscule amount in the grand scheme of things, because government-first types have no comprehension of the concept of risk. "Risk… isn't that the bad thing that only exists absent regulation?"
If a handful of attorneys can bankrupt a health care provider on a whim, it doesn't matter than only a few providers are bankrupted in this fashion — what matters is the disincentive to anyone, anywhere, who might consider starting a similar company.
Mr. Todd Huton,
Are you working for the defendant? I ask because recently Bob Barr wrote an article decrying a criminal sentence and giving only the plaintiff's side of the story, never revealing that he was a paid member of the defense team.
http://biggovernment.com/bbarr/2010/07/21/eric-ho...
http://blogs.jta.org/telegraph/article/2010/06/21...
Bearing that incident in mind, I googled the case you talked about and contrary to your claims, during the trial it was alleged that people had died due to inadequate staffing and a former staffer talked about how patients had suffered due to inadequate staffing levels.
— http://www.contracostatimes.com/ci_15455829?sourc...
Cindy Cool testified earlier in the case on behalf of her father, a former patient at Eureka Healthcare and Rehabilitation before he died from complications of Alzheimer's disease. Cool was in court again Tuesday, and had to fight back tears after she heard the verdict.
—
More like the lawyers get about 95% after all the "fees" and "other bills".
JACKPOT, BABY!
- Reportedly heard from the offices of these weasel tort lawyers when they discovered a way to sue a large health care provider that they had not yet noticed.
Sorry I mispelled your name. For some reason I'm unable to edit the post.
As long as Pelosi is home……:)
For the record think the verdict was wayyyyy too high, and I agree that limits on punitive damages are needed, but when discussing a case, we should be honest about the facts, not exaggerate for the sake of hyperbole ('They awarded damages when no one claimed to be injured!).
I don't see how any business can survive in CA. I'm hoping the bigies still there start looking at tax friendly locales like Texas.
It shall. Breitbart please get out of there.
This case was about staffing levels and Ms. Cool might and I mean might have a personal injury case, so other than chiming in for effect I don't see why the daughter of an Alzheimers patient is involved. ( other than to CA$H in on dear old Dad's demise)
You're making the stretch that inadequet staffing levels CAUSED the father's death. A good doctor could argue oherwise. Either way, I don't see your point.
Huge punitive damages when there was no intent to harm, MUST become a thing of the past.
Actual damages, with sensible guidelines for future avoidance of similar situations, is the only fair, practical,
and sustainable path to take in order to keep the system operating in a fair and just manner
I feel like a broken record again! This is an example of one of the "Big Three" destroying the American economy. Regulations (along with taxes and unions) are not just forcing companies to go bankrupt or not be able to oprerate efficiently, but they are one of the reasons that companies pack up US jobs and take them oversees. It's not just laws that need repealling. Most regulation needs to go also.
BTW- Without so many regulations, we would not need so many federal and state employees to write and enforce them, there by forcing down the cost of government. It would help our unionization problem also.
I am living for the day that these parasite attys. start eating each other. And they will.
How about if the rest of us institute a class action suit against stupid juries? Surely we are in some way injured by this.
If the 'Big one' ever comes, she'll be out of there on her broom along with her flying monkeys.
Except the state never found they did NOT provide the required level of care.
Remember, a jury of the dumbest people the lawyers could find in the pool were bamboozled into BELIEVING there was a problem. Except that nobody claimed any harm was done.
What you can make a jury believe has little to no relationship to reality. So, stop assuming ANY truth was displayed in the outcome of the trial. Lawyers were involved, so the possibility of truth being found did not exist.
Finally, a topic upon which I am an acknowledged industry expert. I have been a senior housing development, finance and management consultant since 1989 and I have been a prime consultant on the development, financing and roll-out of senior housing facilities nationwide (over 400 projects in some 43 states – http://www.rainmakermarketing.com). My work has created billions of dollars of new wealth and tens of thousands of real jobs in senior housing. I developed the first free-standing Type B Alzheimer's Specialty Care Unit in the state of Texas. I know something about this business and you may rely upon this experience to give you an idea of the nature of the problems we face in our industry today. In addition, my wife is a facility administrator and one of my kids was licensed as well. I have developed, constructed, marketed and operated senior housing facilities. I am passionate about the industry and the incredible opportunities it creates on so many levels (investment cash flows not being the least of considerations).
One of the biggest issues facing the country today is the care of the elderly. The current administration views the elderly as an unnecessary expense and the so-called "health care reform" bill is an effort to redistribute the financial resources (that were previously created by these very same elderly people) away from the elderly (who do not support liberal-progressive policies) to the young (who follow the liberal-progressive movement without question). This represents a fraud and breach of trust of the largest proportions. These people paid into these systems (Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid) all their lives under the liberal promise that, when it came to be their turn the services and facilities would be there as the safety net. Now the liberals are being shown to be who they really are – co-conspirators in the largest, ongoing series of Ponzi schemes in the history of government.
To help them along the way, the trial lawyers are standing by to expose the industry as being hopelessly predatory in nature and therefore not worthy of our support. This would allow the liberal-progressives to claim they are entitled to "reform" the senior housing industry for the benefit "of those who need it most". This means the elderly who have saved and invested for the benefit of sustaining their retirement will be forced to pay an even higher price so that they can subsidize more of those who refused to undertake any such measures. The goal here is to reduce the supply of senior housing. By reducing the supply, the number of seniors who can be sustained in the community without the government's direct support is reduced and this ultimately works as a built-in death panel for the benefit of "health care reform". By litigating facility operators into bankruptcy, they are able to achieve their policy goals without having to pass a law or enact rules that would be too controversial for them to obtain. By eliminating the for-profit developer/operators (who have to staff to market expectations or face a complete business failure as senior housing is a supply-and-demand business), this reduces the opportunities for support and frail seniors die at a faster rate.
Get ready, this is just the tip of the iceberg.
However, those minimum were set by the state and per the article all inspections were passed. And if you work in the healthcare industry and have been in an administrative position, you know that the penalties that can be imposed by the state regulatory agencies as well as by CMS are enough to either allow a business entity to straighten its self out or go out of business. And what is interesting in this situation is a patient didn't file a complaint, but rather a group of trial lawyers.
And I do agree with you that minimum standards are required because unfortunately without industry regulations too many unscrupulous people take advantage for the sake of lining their pockets.
I think he's trying to figure out if the author of the article is working for the defendant.
ALLEGATIONS of deaths due to inadequate staffing levels are not fact. That's lawyer-talk for "anything we can make up", no matter how absurd or insane.
Trust me, 3.2 nursing hours per patient per day is isane levels of staffing. It's like, being triple staffed. This is required only for extreme high care patients. The only situation that requires levels that high or higher is ICU and ER. For long term care facilities with only moderate level care patients have NO need of that kind of staffing ratios. All that will do is drive up the cost of care, along with creating a shortage of nursing staff. In the end, you hire anyone who will breath, and take the people nobody else in the country will, to meet the demands. In reality, less staff, of higher quality and better pay, will provide BETTER quality care.
Just because I'm curious and also have worked in the industry, what percentage of residents do not use government benefits to pay for their services (social security, medicare/caid, disability)? Any assisted living facility or SNF loves to have self pay patients (who can actually deliver the cash). I don't disagree with you as to what the current administration wants to see happen with the elderly, but I've noticed many people not understanding how socialized the US medical system already is especially with those who rely on government benefits.
I understand that.
But you know, just because the health/restaurant department doesn't shut down or fine a restaurant does not mean it is not in violation of the law.
I just do not have faith in nursing homes that, in good faith, normally do not exceed the minimums.
No matter how much we like them, or their convenience/service.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, if you read "Killing Time" by Freed and Briggs and "Tainting Evidence: Inside the Scandals at the FBI Crime Lab" by Kelly and Wearne, you're likely to conclude that OJ was probably not guilty. If you additionally dig into some of the peripheral information regarding the subsequent murder of Ron Goldman's room-mate (sorry, I can't recall specific sources, but the murder happened about the time the OJ trial ended), you're likely to consider the possibility that Goldman was the intended victim and that Brown-Simpson was collateral damage.
Approximately 60% of the market is private-pay today.
This just validates my long held belief that lawyers bear a great deal of responsibility for ruining our country.
We need more "good guys" out here. In recent decades the state has tipped left drastically. Some of us are trying hard to correct that!
Well, it IS California.
And it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing, don't you see?
Nobody mentioned how much tax revenue will be lost, how many jobs will be lost, and the 32,000 patients it will harm.
Still, it's the PRINCIPLE of the thing. Like the Gulf oil drilling moratorium. You GOTTA take a stand for the little man against the big corporations.
Mmmm-mmmm-mmmm.
I'm being facetious here, but if I were in the healthcare industry I think I'd start compiling a list of jurors, plaintiffs, lawyers, and judges involved in all health-related class action suits, then circulate the lists to everyone in any aspect of the industry as "people you do not want to accept as patients or customers. Ever!"
oh ya, I get that. I just don't derive that from the text of the article. I think he's(the author) illustrating the absurdity of jury awards in many liability cases. Tort law pays like the lottery and is a much better bet.
That's my take.
Healthcare providers get fined plenty when they don't follow regulations, and if someone is injured they pay big settlements.
Healthcare providers have to be able to operate in an environment that they won't be run out of business if something goes wrong. If the provider is found to be grossly negligent, and doesnt' correct their problems then pull their license. But these Lotto type court cases are outrageous. Hospitals are already closing down, if you think the current system is great, then look for companies to get entirely out of the business.
I just shut my small business. down. All the outrageous environmental and liability issues here made it to risky to continue. Felt like I had a bullseye on my back.
The point I'm making is that the writer seemed to minimize/ignore some pretty serious allegations of misconduct either in order to make Skilled Healthcare come across as sympathetic or to buttress the case for tort reform. This wasn't a case of a harmless violation of a meaningless rule.
— http://www.times-standard.com/localnews/ci_152995...
Patients who they contend did not receive showers on a regular basis, walked around with catheters leaking and dragging on the ground, had wounds left untreated and were forced to sit in soiled bed sheets for hours or, in some cases, even days.
— http://www.allbusiness.com/legal/trial-procedure-...
McGrath detailed the events of the morning of June 16, when she said that after another CNA called in sick, there were only two people to feed and take care of 29 residents.
—-
I would like to start one here in Texas. Have a business plan, and I think a pretty good chance of making it in normal situation. But these are not normal times, so I'll sit and wait. Hopefully in 2 years?
*Shrugs* Perhaps. I don't see why he had to try to turn the plaintiff into an angel in order to make the case for tort reform though.
Juries can be emotional, so when they hear about old people being mistreated in nursing homes they are going to want to award a kazillion dollars.
One doesn't need to believe/pretend that there were no damages in order to make the case that it would have been better for America if the nursing home chain remained open (but reformed its ways) rather than be destroyed by lawsuit.
Ideology trumps reality!
Only in California!
I worry for our country.
Litigation attorneys are the scum of the earth.
Great info here. No doubt that Obama and his progressives want to divert $$$ from seniors, and spend on so-called underserved populations(read redistribution of wealth, reparations, etc. etc.). I also believe women are going to find that their preventive care will be pulled from them.
I have been reading stories of small business people finding out that their current employer provide healthcare is deemed to be a "cadillac plan"( we're talking a Blue Cross PPO, believe me it is pretty basic I have this), and it makes more sense for them to pay the penalty and have their employees get into the government exchange. Can't see your doctor of choice anymore. Obama/Congress pitched a complete lie.
I believe there is going to be absolute rioting when people figure this out and mother's are sitting in a clinic waiting 6 to 8 hours(after a 2 week appointment time-line) with a crying infant with an ear ache.
It's coming.
moot…
OJ is an idiot in nevada…
We all feel better now
They may garner about 1/3 of the monies actually awarded.
Don't forget Arizona is also a business friendy state.
I'll concede all of your points other than Warner Todd Huston having stake in this issue. With the big spot light shining on the "Bigs" I can't imagine Huston leaving out his personal involment but that's just my opinion. You're obviously welcome to ask the question – which is, I guess, a relevant one.
Nursing homes are a popular target for suits, often on credible grounds.
In today's world lawyers are in it for the big bucks. Money is everything. Law is secondary if even considered. IMHO, lawyers are now parasites on the body politic. Interesting tidbit – the US has more lawyers per capita than any other country in the world. one for every 265 Americans. Brazil a close second with one for every 326 citizens.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_country_in_the_wor...
It's too late. We're already third world status.
I'm not saying that he has a stake, but given what happened with Barr (who didn't disclose his involvement), I think its reasonable to ask the question.
"Are you working for the defendant…"
I don't want to nit-pick but your first rhetorical question to Huston asks if he is personally involved. (see above) I'm a candidate for law school but I don't want to seem to be cross examining you.
thankfully tort reform was sternly addressed in obamacare so things like this never happen. XD
This goes back to last year when the toxic ObamaCare was being Rammed by the Dems.
We Conservatives protested, and offered reasonable, correct remedies:
1- Do Tort Reform
2- Allow pre-existing condition patients the care they need
3- Continue to ensure Health Care for ALL Americans, by strengthensing our facilities and increasing our Staff. ~~~~~~~~~~ Oh wait, I forgot, ObamaCare is not just about health————— – - – - –
It's got 2,300 pages of Taxes, Govt. Regulations, Govt agencies & socialized medicine, (yeah that always works)
Houston we've a problem. Repeal ObamaCare and the socialists/fascists that go with it.
~~~Socialism is incompatible with America.~~~~ Don't vote alone, in Nov! Take your friends, and scream bloody
murder if you see Voter Fraud. Call the press! Don't be complacent. This will be close.
Just think….we got a brand new healthcare bill WITHOUT tort reform.
Barry-Bob's gift to the trial lawyers.
Yeah, but according to MSM, y'all are all racists! Only MOST of us in Texas are racist according to them. (Joke)
And yet we keep electing them. Especially Harvard types.
What is 10,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean? A good start. MARXIST=DEMOCRATS=TERRORIST All the same.
I saw some disturbing parallels to Barr's article in that both guys wrote only about one party and both guys completely accepted the defendant's version of events. Still, I should have been more diplomatic in my wording.
All private sector health care services must be eliminated in order for the government to gain a complete monopoly. And just think of the hardship stories this will generate that the Democrats can parade in front of cameras to justify their single-payer health care solution, in their endless pursuit of absolute control over all of our lives.
http://www.backyardfence.wordpress.com
Wow!! That has gone up a lot. No wonder they want to take it down.
You've got that right. They get 40% of the settlement AFTER their expenses are deducted – and their expenses lists are obscene. Class actions only benefit the lawyers – no one else.
In healthcare it should be zero tolerance for those providing care. If you can not andd will not follow the rules of the industry, it is deserving you should go out of business.
Now there's an idea…
ObamaCare is one major component to the larger Oppression that this toxic Obama Administration has forced upon America's against their will. Is anyone surprised that it doesn't work even though it's barely begun?
California and it's officials have embraced Obama's policies, including Amnesty. How's that working out for you? Oh, You're bankrupt? Hmm
Socialism is incompatible with the fabric of America. The Obama Adminisration would do very well in Cuba.
He may be an idiot in California, too, but he's doing time because someone misused 'the color of authority' to even a score that wasn't skewered. When exceptions are made to that "rule by law and not by men" thing, we all lose.
Yeah, but can't you just imagine the field day the trial lawyers would have with that one?
Umm, I don't see anywhere in the article that states that there should not be "reasonable MINIMUM standards for health care facilities." The point of the article is that award in the case is completely outrageous. Can you read?
Great insights and inside info, Rainmaker. Thanks.
Actually they couldn't do anything. It's an open market so they are free to take their business wherever they like.
I agree, but I also understand what the 3.2 actually means:) Maybe you could put it into terms that the non medical personnel could understand which may have a higher impact. In the world that I came from that 3.2 basically equates to one RN (don't know if SNF regs in CA allow for LPNs or aides to count in those hours) per 12 hour shift to have a little less than 4 patients per the shift. Feel free to correct me if I'm using something different.
We can tell that big dummy Hank Johnson that it just capsized due to overpopulation.
I can tell you have common sense and are therefore better suited to sit in Congress than 90% of the dummies presently there.
Ah, yes, it's an open market for the customers/clients/patients. Probably not so open and free for providers/purveyors to decline the business. Not to draw a moral equivalency, but there's a legal precedent in the desegregation of public and private facilities in the South (Civil Rights Act of 1965), which removed the option of private businesses to "reserve the right to refuse service."
Kentucky Senate candidate Rand Paul was demonized recently for expressing his opinion that privately-owned businesses should have been deemed Constitutionally exempt from such mandates; although we know what the purpose and reason for the mandate was, I'd wager dollars to donuts a second-year law student could effectively argue that refusing service to those on my list would be "discriminatory of a particular group or class."
The law of unintended consequences!
Dang the bad luck. I have always told dirtbags to take a hike and now I learn I am not supposed to do that?
LOL! You could probably apply for the Dirtbag Exemption, but you might have to claim the dirtbag votes Republican.
There's always those niggling exceptions…
I'd have to question a trial taking six months? Also, from the sound of this case, the greedy trial lawyers will be the only real winners!
I do not work for any lawyer or law firm, nor am I associated with one.
Lawyers create nothing, produce nothing, and provide no essential service that a man can't live without, and yet our legal system allows them to become rich by suing those in our society who create, produce, and provide. Why? Oh yeah, lawyers make the law, judge the law, prosecute the law, and represent us before the law.
Nice little racket they have going there.
Yes, can you? Why do you assume my comment had anything to agree/disagree with the award in the case?
It's my opinion, and I'm right.
There should be MINIMUM standards, and facilities should exceed those standards, not attempt to comply and end up with the occasional oops, that's just part of the challenges of the business, attitude.
"And what unforeseen consequences might this award have in the healthcare industry throughout California and the rest of the country?"
I'd say all those libs in CA will have to eat crow and drive their grandmas and grandpas to Yuma to be well cared for by legal immigrants. Looks like another growth industry for Arizona.
is this what our young men and women fight and die to protect?
So trial lawyers may throw our elderly into the streets to die so they may be rich?
Who are these attorneys? how do we stop this insanity? Has the time come when we should
divide our country into the doers versus the takers? God Bless those elderly and their caretakers.
May we forgive in our hearts the trial attorneys who destroy our country for their personal gain.
Again who are these attorneys? Jonathan Rosenfeld appears to be one who sues Nursing homes.
Oh well, they are just old people anyway, really who cares if they throw them out into the street.
May God Bless our beautiful country and rid us of these Godless Charlatan Rotten Lawyers who destroy rather than fix. heartless sons of a guns. their Ship has rotted and they are no longer the Captains of their souls.
Before The Big One shakes CA into the ocean where it belongs lets send all of the civil lawyers there on vacation just before it happens.
"Clear evidence that while tort reform is vital, "
Not really. This is one story and as always someone will use it in the service of their ego. Of course you will not hear about the injured patient that did not sue or the injured patient that was not allowed to go to court. Nor will you hear about those big awards that were eventually brought way down by a judge. Who are conservatives really complaining about, you.
The system has a lawyer for the plaintiff and a lawyer or lawyers for the defendant. There is one judge, the referee, and twelve citizens called the jury. Each side tells their story and presents their facts. When each side has completed their arguments and presented all of their facts the judge tells the jury the laws that must be applied when deciding the case. The jury then moves to deliberate the case in private amongst themselves.
It is the jury that the Republicans, the US Chamber of Commerce and big business are really complaining about, the common man, you and I. Do they not believe we are not capable of making decisions about how to live our lives, that we are not capable of governing ourselves, that we are not capable as fully informed citizens to make decisions about the conscience of our community? Is this what we believe? I would argue otherwise.
Our Founding Fathers recognized the collective wisdom and judgment of its citizens and also understood that of each of us unconsciously seeks those bits of information that confirm our underlying intuition. This is why the founding fathers gave us a system that allows for dissent. This confrontation forces us, the majority, to interrogate our own positions more seriously. (Some on the right do not believe in this.)
Yes, the jury system is not perfect, but neither is any institution that man creates and participates in because we ourselves are fallible. Given all of its imperfections the jury system is a microcosm of the very Democracy that men and woman have died for through our history. Yes, again I will say the jury system is not perfect but it is ours.
The Founding fathers wanted to create a framework that would allow society to orient itself through dictates of conscience. This framework forces each of us into a communal process of finding the truth, an approach to truth that is experienced. An approach to truth that is more than dogmatic belief or a truth inferred from logical arguments. Are these principles and values something that we truly believe in our hearts as the best approach to society?
I can only come to one conclusion and that is that the common man is not capable of rendering judgment but yet is capable of participating in the free markets, the stock market and Democracy. I sometimes have to believe that Republicans want a king because they are constantly attacking one of the few protections that the middle class has outside of their back door. Yes, it is the jury, the common man, that Republicans are complaining about because obviously we are all to stupid to render judgment once we have heard all the facts. We are all to stupid as to how we want to orient society.
What were the founding fathers thinking about. Giving all this power in the stupid middle class.
Are these attorneys not the result of the free markets or are they an evil secret government entity that is out to destroy all that is good in this world. I believe it was el Rushbo that said that anything that doesn't make a profit does not provide any value to society. I believe trial lawyers and their firms make a profit and I believe they have clients and there for they offer a great value to the middle class. Value that big business wants to take away from the middle class.
I would suggest that all you experts on the legal system read and educate yourself on how the legal system works before you start contributing to the discussion. It is sort of like when Republicans complain about Obama because he has no "business" experience or "executive" experience.
You must be logged in to post a comment.