Quote:
Originally Posted by Terry
I support tort reform with reason. I believe there are some frivolous lawsuits though, there are many with merit as well. That is why I believe in a trial with a jury hearing the facts, supporting arguments, and, award settlement. I would hate to see a system where companies, physicians, other entities could practice with impunity. In the State of Michigan; John Engler, past governor ensured that the pharmaceutical companies cannot be sued in our state. This can only occur in Federal court where the client is assured of losing. So the people hurt in the Viox cases throughout the country could collect due to negligence but, not in Michigan. I hate to see the little guy get squashed and big business gets away with whatever they want with immunity. It's a lousy system when the little guy gets victimized over and over again.
I have also made my case very well known on the forum here. A dog ran in to my bicycle as it was not on a leash. I went end-over-end and shattered my clavicle and destroyed my spine. You can only sue someone for their policy limits and nothing more. The stories you hear about people getting rich are ones where big businesses are liable. The homeowner had $100,000 policy. My settlement was still not enough to cover my expenses. I shelled out $74,000 out of pocket to cover all of my medical costs, bicycle and clothing reimbursement, physical therapy, medications, etc.
Tort reform will benefit insurance companies, who are already wealthy, and corporations who have probably been proven at fault in court or, settled out of court to take care of the case.
The homeowner's insurance company was State Farm and they refused to talk to us in any way, shape or form. They forced us to sue and played hard ball every step of the way.
Most believe in all of the hype about the McDonald's coffee suit. When you get injured it's another story entirely. All I wanted was money, that taken out of my retirement plan, to get me back whole, to be replaced. Without the money being replaced I would never be able to retire.
Terry Newton
|
I second this. I finally settled my case against the 18 wheeler who hit me. First of all, do to liability laws, they were only liable for 6 months of my care, since I was a passenger in another wreck 6 months after they hit me. So all, the following figures are for 6 months of my care (from Jan 06-July 06). My medical for those 6 months was $40,000. I got a settlement of $75,000, which sounds like a lot; but here is the true breakdown. Attorney fees $35,000 (who I was forced into hiring, since the other company was not willing to work with me, they wanted to give me 30K, which would have left me in the hole), Money owed to health insurance for payments they made, $14,000, money owed to automobile insurance for medical payments they made on me $5,000, money I paid out of pocket for medical $15,000, and money I paid for childcare and house cleaning (I had a 2 week old baby and a 2 year old when this happened and I was on strict restrictions, so I had to hire help) $4,000. That totals $73,000 owed out of $75,000; so I get $2,000 for pain and suffering. It makes me sick that someone can destroy your life as you know it, take away your livelihood and I get a lousy 2k.
On the McDonald's suit, I was talking to my attorney and I said something about frivolous lawsuits and I brought that up. He said in fact, that that McDonalds had been cited over 30 times by the health department for their coffee being too hot, they had had other people get burned and still did not turn down the coffee. So in fact, they knew the coffee was too hot, had initinally left it too hot and ignored numerous warnings to turn it down. The lady who was burned, also had 3rd degree burns from the coffee, hence the suing. I'm not saying the suit was right or wrong, just pointing out how the media just does the headline to shock and never gives the facts behind the case.