Tort Reform is a Myth, and Congress is Lying to You

As a society, we forget that we have certain rights especially if it’s not pertinent to our particular life at a particular time. We feel as if, “Well, I’m not affected, so why worry about it?” But this country has held that whoever you are, you may sue a person who injures you and eventually (at least) get to a jury trial with a jury that is made up of your peers. Now, however after 30 years of all kinds of “tort reform” – which is designed to do nothing but limit your rights – our elected officials are at it again.

Over the years, we have seen a limitation on how much time one has to file a lawsuit (statute of limitations). We have found limitations on damage awards. We recently had a case in West Virginia in which a severely handicapped man’s wife, who took care of her husband as only a saint would do, was denied any compensation under the law for loss of consortium (services, society and sexual intimacy), even though the jury made an award to her because the awards were limited and everything recovered went to her husband as if she did not exist. We have seen attempts to limit attorneys’ fees that have been successful in some places and not others. We have seen many other attempts such as restrictions on joint and several liability. All of these have one effect: They harm the individual who has been hurt – not the one who has done the hurting, but the one who has been hurt. Who does this protect other than big business, insurance companies, and the government?

There are real problems with award limits

Now Republicans in Congress are again attempting to limit awards to $250,000.00 no matter your age or the injury, for life. If you are hurt and can no longer work, you will run through that money in a matter of years – and then what will you do?

Lawmakers also wish to eliminate joint and several relationships; they want to narrow the statute of limitations further; they want to reduce attorneys’ fees. What will this achieve besides limitations on individuals?

One thing it will do is remove experienced lawyers from the process, because when attorneys’ fees are limited in these kinds of cases, attorneys don’t take the cases. The amount of money a law firm puts into a case can go into the hundreds of thousands. These law firms work on contingency, which means that the attorneys do not get paid unless the client wins. If a firm spends half a million dollars on a case but the award is capped at half that, and the fees are only a quarter of that, now that firm is out hundreds of thousands of dollars. This system can bankrupt law firms within a few years. The only injured people that could possibly be properly represented by attorneys would be the persons who have been catastrophically injured. Anyone else can simply forget about having representation, and they can rely upon the healthcare system to do nothing, or pay what they think is appropriate. This begs the question: would you rather be represented by someone who is interested in your side of the story, and has invested the time, effort and expenses into building a solid case – or by the system that has caused the harm?

The proponents of such legislation are by a vast majority, Republicans. The same people who speak about state’s rights, and concern for the individual, attempt to limit your rights by federal legislation.

So the next time you think about who has your interest at heart, you merely need to ask, Where do these people stand on protecting my rights, that I or my child may want to exercise in the future? Where do they stand on the issue of limiting rights that I may wish to invoke at some time in the future if I am injured by a hospital? If they are limiting your rights, is that really who you want to vote for?

When you hear reports of such legislation, ask where your Congressperson or candidate stands. And then take the time to really think if that is the type of person you want to represent you.