Comments on: New York med-mal lawyers reach for an Albany payday

By: PhilG

PhilG — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 21:15:22 +0000

And, on Mar 29, the New York Post had yet another followup article on this in which it said “Gov. Paterson’s proposal to lift the cap on attorneys’ fees for malpractice suits could bankrupt some hospitals or force others to cut vital services and raise patient costs, industry experts warn…”. Here’s a link to that Post article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/03292009/news/regionalnews/govs_med_plan_bankrupt_fear_161907.htm

By: Andrew Barovick

Andrew Barovick — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:01:29 +0000

SSFC-
No, we cannot get 33% of a small, or any award, at present. The fee structure allows fees to the med mal attorney, after the deducting of disbursements, as follows: 30% of the first $250,000; 25% of the next $250,000; 20% of the next $250,000; 15% of the next $250,000; and 10% of any amount over $1,250,000. So, I think an adustment up to the percentage used in other personal injury cases would be a step in the right direction, particularly in light of the advanced level of expertise required to prosecute a med mal case in comparison to a standard negligence case.

By: SSFC

SSFC — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 01:53:01 +0000

What the Post’s article fails to consider is that allowing the fee structure to work the same way as any other personal injury case may well have a positive effect overall, as more med mal lawyers would be willing to take on, and invest in, cases of lesser value, damages-wise, whereas at present, given the costs associated with building a case over several years, most of us cannot afford to do so.

You can already get 33% of a small award, and I assume New York awards costs to the prevailing party. The fee cap, as it stands, would seem to discourage lawyers from taking the larger cases. I really don't see what this has to do with small cases.

By: STB

STB — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 22:23:36 +0000

Andrew, we agree on one point — it smells bad. Saying that it’s “politics” or that others do it doesn’t make it any less of a backroom deal. This isn’t even wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor; it’s wealth redistribution from the seriously injured (who don’t “have the resources to be heard”) to their own lawyers (who, in spite of their own incessant claims of poverty, somehow find ways to be one of the most financially powerful interest groups in the country). This is the function and purpose of this change. IF it had any positive effect, it would be, at best, a marginal side-effect.

By: Andrew Barovick

Andrew Barovick — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 10:43:43 +0000

“Backroom deal” is not a fair characterization. Was it a front room, properly transparent deal when former governor Spitzer’s neurosurgeon brother was whispering in his ear about how to help the medical liability companies and doctors avoid responsibility for the medical consumers hurt or killed by malpractice? Politics is politics, and it will always smell bad.
What the Post’s article fails to consider is that allowing the fee structure to work the same way as any other personal injury case may well have a positive effect overall, as more med mal lawyers would be willing to take on, and invest in, cases of lesser value, damages-wise, whereas at present, given the costs associated with building a case over several years, most of us cannot afford to do so.

By: STB

STB — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:07:58 +0000

The "stick it to our clients" back room dealing gives us an idea what Weitz really means when he says: "It’s very rewarding to be able to represent these people, many who do not have the resources to be heard."

By: PhilG

PhilG — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:41:01 +0000

And here’s a follow-up article on it from the March 26 New York Post:
http://www.nypost.com/seven/03262009/news/regionalnews/docs_sick_over_malpractice_cap_boost_161385.htm