A few days ago we noted some moves down in the great state of Massachusetts to make malpractice payouts predictable and consistent with the injury. One reader, Matt, responded otherwise.
"Why should payouts be based on the type of injury? Wouldn't it be more equitable to base them on the person's circumstances in terms of their pre-injury quality of life, or their lost earnings? Why should the injury to an 80 year old in a wheelchair have the same value as the same injury to a 20 year old college football star?
Of course, evaluating those factors is what juries do already, and there is no statistical evidence that they aren't already consistent, is there?"
Bothered? Interest piqued? Do you too agree and think the system is fine how it is?