Suppose you went to the hospital to undergo a fairly routine medical procedure—say, ulcer surgery. But
before you were discharged, you contracted a hospital-acquired infection, which in turn, was improperly treated. As a result, all of your limbs had to be amputated - both arms, and both legs.
Now suppose you sue those responsible to obtain some compensation for a lifetime of misery and care caused by your horrendous and preventable injuries. You win your case and a jury, after listening to all the evidence presented by both sides, decides how much you need for your lifetime. Then, a judge cuts the jury's verdict on non-economic damages by more than half, because politicians had cruelly decided, a few years earlier, to cap damages in such cases.
That’s what happened to Dallas, TX resident David Fitzgerald, 53, a former maintenance man, in just the latest ugly example of what so-called “tort reforms” actually do.
As Fitzgerald's attorney, Linda Turley put it, caps represent a "tragic unfairness" for injured people like Fitzgerald, who "can't bathe by himself, can't get out of the house by himself and will need assistance for the rest of his life."
Mr. Fitzgerald is one of the forgotten faces in the debate of medical malpractice caps, which medical societies argue are meant to stop “frivolous” lawsuits, but as this case and others clearly show, the caps are hardly limited to “frivolous” cases. They apply no matter how much merit a case has, or the extent of the misconduct of the hospital or doctor. They apply regardless of the severity of the injury. Therefore, those most hurt by the bill are the most catastrophically injured. In fact, as Rand found, the most significant impact of such caps “falls on patients and families who are severely injured or killed as a result of medical negligence or mistakes.”
It’s time for anyone really concerned with family values and personal responsibility to start repealing these cruel and unjust laws.
Comments