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?
You took my comment a little too far - I didn't say the system (not sure which system we're referring to) is fine how it is - every system could use improvement - we are human after all.
I simply said basing awards on the injury wasn't equitable.
Posted by: Matt | March 23, 2006 at 09:35 AM
The system we are refering to is medical liability. That being said, how would you improve it? That's what we are trying to do: Provoke discussion and bring change.
Posted by: ThisMakesMeSick Editor | March 23, 2006 at 11:33 AM
As I mentioned to Eric, there is no "medical liability system". There is a civil justice system, and it applies to all civil cases. Medical malpractice has a few more hurdles for plaintiffs in most states, but other than that, it's the same "system" as all other civil cases.
But before I proceed further, let me ask you - WHY are you trying to bring change - what result are you seeking? Change for change's sake? Because while I might recommend changes, they may be worthless if I don't know your goal.
Posted by: Matt | March 23, 2006 at 11:47 AM
You and Matt wanna take this outside?
In all seriousness, it's "piqued", not "peeked".
best,
Flea
Posted by: Flea | March 24, 2006 at 05:13 PM