West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Latest Comments

A comment on Profit Over Safety -- A $20 Decision

Mike Bryant — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:52:51 GMT

Wow, $20 dollars, it is so little and could save so many. One of those things that people shouldn't even have to think about. Make the changes, fix the product and make it safe. Most of all save lives.

A comment on FDA Warns About Pain Pumps -- Manufacturers Knew

Mike Bryant — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:09:46 GMT

The sense of injustice when these items that are meant to heal are lied about, untested and mislabeled. The lack of responsibility , in the name of helping people is criminal. Hopefully, these kind of defenses and excuses will not be tolerated.

A comment on Loser Pays -- Tort Reform Hypocrisy

John Fossum — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 12:41:46 GMT

It seems to me the unexplored topic in this debate is what happens when tort or malpractice recovery is limited or denied. If the injured party does not have sufficient health or disability insurance then the cost is shifted to the public.

Tort reform is an attempt to socialize the risk of great harm. If the tortfeasors do not pay than Social Security and other public programs will have to make up the loss. Why not explain that better? If people understood the intent to shift the cost, and court's ability to already sanction truly frivolous lawsuits, then maybe they would listen.

A comment on Loser Pays -- Tort Reform Hypocrisy

Mark Bello — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:08:47 GMT

Patrick: In a battle of "schmucks", the clear "schmuck" is Robert. And I don't understand his criminal case analogy either. Stossel and his ilk are all hypocrites, just like the ultimate hypocrite, the US Chamber of Commerce. That said, with all due respect, I disagree with your position on "loser pays". I understand and agree with the statistics you quote, but win-loss percentages are not the problem with loser pays. Even using your statistics, 41 out of 100 clients will be forced to pay fees that they cannot possibly afford. This concept, if it became law, would, in my view, have a chilling effect on a plaintiff's decision to bring suit. A plaintiff should be able to make that choice without having to worry about whether losing the case will cause him or her to go bankrupt. Since most defendants are either corporate or backed by billions in insurance money, the scales of justice are already tilted in their favor. The only 'economic sword' that the plaintiff has in his arsenal is the contingency fee. As attorneys, with loser pays, we have to tell our clients what the cost of pursuing, say, a very expensive malpractice case would be, and what the defendants' costs are likely to be if we lose. Don't you think that will factor into a plaintiff's thinking as to whether or not to go forward? Don't you think that litigants with meritorious cases will choose not to pursue them for fear of having to pay defendants' costs if they lose? I'd would like your thoughts on the potential chilling effect of this concept. Regards, Mark

A comment on Loser Pays -- Tort Reform Hypocrisy

Mike Bryant — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 11:04:29 GMT

Stossel is just a talking head. He was promoting his book and lost all fair perspective. The tort deformers now pay him to come spout his venum. Not even sure why his opinion matters. But , the interesting thing about loser pay is, that many States do have it. I don't like when a plaintiff loses and they owe the insurance company money, because that is what the fight really is, the defendant is just a pawn of the system in so many cases. The English rule has extra protections against such inequities, but most people that throw the English rule out, have no idea what their whole system is anyway.

A comment on Loser Pays -- Tort Reform Hypocrisy

Patrick Quinlan — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:07:13 GMT

I do not recall Mr. Stossel singing the praises of trial lawyers at any time in the past, I am pretty sure that he kept every penny of his $425,000 pain and suffering settlement (despite his “regrets”), and he certainly made no mention of his personal recovery while bashing plaintiffs and their lawyers in his latest blog. As to your substantive points: the relevance of the federal criminal conviction rate is completely lost on me. The settlement issue is a little less clear, since it is more difficult to gauge what percentage of “valid” versus “invalid” cases get settled than it is to analyze trial results. But nothing about civil settlements changes my fundamental position: that every plaintiffs’ lawyer I know would be happy to adopt the “loser pays” approach. I would really like to hear from a plaintiffs’ lawyer who disagrees, with an explanation why.

A comment on Loser Pays -- Tort Reform Hypocrisy

Robert — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:56:22 GMT

You are a schmuck. You make Stossel out to be a hypocrite because he says one thing and then does another. But in this case his doing came years before his saying. Years after his law suit he had a change in his thinking about tort reform, and many other things. He now says he regrets the suit.

Another thing. Sure, a great number of valid cases get settled out of court, but a great number of invalid cases also get settled out of court, and not justly. Often the reason why suits are settled out of court is that the defendant sees a settlement as less expensive option than continuing to pay to fight a case, even if the defendant is in the right.

59% of defendants in civil courts lose. Compare that to 90% in federal criminal cases where the burden of proof is much higher.

A comment on Tort Reform, Lies, and Lady Justice

Mike Bryant — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 22:52:09 GMT

A distraction, is exactly what this is and another way to say no. These opposition groups ahd a chance to do something and instead they wrote protections out of the law and enriched their buddies. It's time the consumer was protected and the system was put back in order.

A comment on Dragons, Tort Reform and Other Myths

Mike Bryant — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 01:19:02 GMT

Very nice review of what is being said out there. these editorials are filled with bad information. Hopefully, the more we get out the message and tell the stories of real people, the consumer will hear it. The testimony is always interesting, thanks for the information on Florida.

A comment on Pfizer Bigger and More Profitable--Victims Wait for Justice

Jane Akre — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:49:47 GMT

Brenda-
Excellent information on this merger and its aftermath. Consolidation is the name of the game, but at what price to the consumer?