So the first one is just a gimme??????????????
I'd say you're pretty safe about not getting a lawsuit if the first one never counts??????
People and their problems and their damages are important and for the little guy to have any chance at being fairly represented that's why we have a court system to sort out the truth.
Talk about Tort reform takes various forms... few that I could in good conscience agree with.
Trying to make the plaintiff pay attorney's fees on both sides if they lose is just a fancy way to scare off lawsuits... and some of those lawsuits would be 100% valid but never tried.
Taking the jury award completely out of the hands of a jury seems wrong to me as well.
Now I could see some mediation or arbitration as a first step before a trial and I can see some caps on certain injuries and certain situations but those (maximum) caps would certainly have too be set high... high enough to not only fairly compensate the damaged party but also detour bad practices.
If someone brings a lawsuit that is FRAUDULENT then they can already be held criminally liable as things are right now.
Bottom line the medical evidence is the medical evidence and a jury first has to determine that. After that there is a lot that goes into a final judgment such as loss of life, loss of future earnings and/or other long term or life long detrimental health issues.
There's a lot involved here and like I've said before often insurance just doesn't want to pay out regardless of their client being at fault. It's not easy at all to go up against a big powerful insurance company with deep pockets predisposed to...
DENY A CLAIM
DISPUTE A CLAIM
DEFEND A CLAIM
[media=youtube]yYs5FJectpE[/media]
