thedonz

need everyone's help in Florida....Vote "No" on Amendment 3....it is a deceptive way to preclude accountability for doctors......

Zero Cavity

Or a way for lawyers to get RICH.

dhlaw

The enemy is the insurance companies not the attorneys...... look at the rates relative to claims paid out!! They are raping the doctors.

Andrew Corn

I agree, vote no, who will be next, doctors or dentists? Limits my right to negotiate with my lawyer.

Prevents high risk, high cost to bring to trial PI cases from being taken when they have merit. PI is not only medical!

Your health care it high because no one cares to participate in the cost of their treatment and they only worry about how much co-pay.

I have alot more issues with how doctors make decisions on your medical treatment based on how much your insurance will pay then I do with lawyers that I can negotiate with.

JaayTeee

http://www.votesmartflorida.org/voterguide.asp#amend3

After reading this, one could conclude.

1. This will be a dissincentive to the "John Edwards"
of the world.

2. Those "John Edwards" of the world, will have to be filing
for mucho more $$$$$'s worth of damages, to make it worth
their while

Smarty

You are absolutely correct!

CAP071

Where is the connection to General Boating ?

thedonz

Doctor,

You know better than that. Its a way for doctors to be immune from a valid lawsuit when they injure, maim or kill a patient.

thedonz

Yes I am a lawyer, and I represent those injured as a result of medical negligence. You could say that as a Plaintiff's medical malpractice lawyer I am biased, and I would certainly understand your concern. At first blush it would appear that the intent behind this amendment which was proposed by the medical community was to give the bulk of the recovery to the injured plaintiff, rather than the attorney (who receives either 1/3 or 40% of the recovery now). And if you believe that that is the true concern of the physicians then you unfortunately are not informed enough about the intent behind this Amendment. The true intent is to financially preclude a lawsuit from being commenced against a negligent doctor who injures or maims a patient because the costs of bringing such a lawsuit are usually well into the tens of thousands, and sometimes into the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and no lawyer could justify undertaking such a case and fronting such costs where there is extremely limited financial recovery for the lawyer. Thus, no lawsuits for medical negligence, thus no accountability for the negligent doctor, thus no compensation AT ALL for the injured patient. Unfortunately, those patients injured the most severely would suffer the greatest loss. And the doctors laugh all the way to the bank. I urge everyone to be very careful about voting on this dangerous amendment.

BK

Bravo. Great post.

My son was treated for cancerous neuroblastoma when all he had was a thyroid problem. The CT scan iodine dye put him into a thyroid storm and almost killed him. We didn't sue, but should have.

We ended up with over $7,000 in needless medical bills before we found new doctors that actually knew what they were doing.

I can't imagine a law that would prevent a person from getting an award when an incompetent doctor makes a blunder that causes a serious injury or death. I hate frivolous law suits just as much as anyone - but limiting ALL suits is just not right.


.