M. Chase writes:

I work as a part time paralegal for a defense firm after years as a risk manager in a hospital, so I think I have some insights on your discussion. I have met many many attorneys over the years, both Plaintiff and defense.

Because of the years I spent working in a hospital I am well aware of the number of medical errors that happen every day. I knew of many times someone should have been sued and was not. I saw where medical staff members were reluctant to discipline or remove poor performing physicians, who continued to practice.

While at the hospital I was involved in a case with one of the Plaintiff attorneys from hell. When it finally settled, five years after the event, they only one who made out was the attorney. (I know from the hospital's standpoint we would have settled for the same dollar amount four years earlier.)

There is no simple solution to our mal practice "crisis". To think that putting a cap on awards without fixing the underlying issues (insurance companies, physicians, staffing problems, poor reimbursement, to name a few) will fix the problem is ludicrous.

If, after five years, the only one who "made out" was the attorney, the case must not have settled for too much, meaning that the attorney didn't make out too well. And if the hospital would have settled for the same amount four years earlier, why didn't it? The emailer didn't say, but my guess is that the insurance company wouldn't put any authority on the case. Which happens routinely, especially in medical negligence cases.