Cincinnati Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Latest Comments

A comment on Why Do Attorneys Charge Contingent Fees?

anon — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 20:18:39 GMT

There are several people who are rich, pretend they are poor, and abuse the contingent fee structure to get free service from lawyers and cause nuisance cases. The lawyers in their hurry to make a quick buck use borderline unethical pressure tactics causing grief to other party. Whatever happened to "reasonable" lawyer fees so everyone can afford them and have a fair trial? In the end, the clients (both sides) are the losers. If you are a defending company and are spending big bucks to defend nuisance cases, the cost of business goes up eventually causing higher consumer prices. Contingent fee - bad idea.

A comment on Who Does Tort or Medical Malpractice Reform Really Benefit?

Mike Bryant — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:47:37 GMT

Mr O'Hare, while I don't agree with all of your ideas, I will say it is one of the more rational lists I've seen from anyone calling for reform. Minnesota uses affidavits and it works well with our lower premiums and continues great health care. I think it's a little unfair to use the math of the defenses costs to figure out what the percentage was for the plaintiff, because it either suggests the case should have settled a lot earlier or alternatively the attorney was absolutely necessary for the claim to get to where it did. Put, setting that aside, and stepping back I can see the overall point. I don't see caps as ever being anything but a way to limit responsibility and I would add better policing of the medical industry to your list.

A comment on Why Do Attorneys Charge Contingent Fees?

Mike Bryant — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 22:38:02 GMT

It's the keys to the courthouse for so many people that could never take on the battle and receive justice. Very nice round up for the underpinnings of what is the heart of the protection for the consumers constitutional rights.

A comment on Who Does Tort or Medical Malpractice Reform Really Benefit?

Jeremy Engdahl-Johnson — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:52:35 GMT

The current medical malpractice (medmal) system is woefully inefficient, with only 39 cents on the dollar going to claimants. Find out more at More ...

A comment on Who Does Tort or Medical Malpractice Reform Really Benefit?

Jim O'Hare VP medmal claims — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 09:23:10 GMT

A reasonable approach. In 25 years of med mal claims analysis, I rarely see attempts to just make a client whole, unless paying all the available coverage means whole. The costs of defending suits has increased significantly.

A recent case just settled for $400k among 4 codefendants. I spent almost $100k for counsel , experts, records, reporters etc. I assume the other defendants did as well. In this case, the total cost to defend was 400k, I am guessing that the plaintiffs paid $75k and contingency was 33%, or 133k. That is 475k spent on a case that settled for 400k. The plaintiff rec'd about $200k.

This is about 25% of the total expenditure and too little in my view. How do you make the client whole when they get only 25- 40% of the total expenditure? How do we get more money to the injured and keep the ancillary costs down?
Maybe arbitration? Dont dismiss it, it could work.

Re meaningful reform :
- get rid of joint and several, as those with insurance pay for those that do not.
- loser pays. Why not? creates frugality, stimulates settlement..
- expert affidavits prior to every suit.
- a frivelous suit statute.
- Cap only pain and suffering, the amount can be debated. Neither side can argue what is too much or too little. It is a subjective concept with no objective ruler. There is no scale for pain. Money is a poor ruler.
- how about one expert per defendant for each side to handle liability, causation and damages.
- How about examining the definition of "peer", look it up in any dictionary of your choice. docs dont get peers, you know, similiar rank and station in society. Arbitration fixes this as well.
- How about structuring payouts, lets say everything over 250k.
- How about all Docs need PL insurance to practice. Just like we all need car insurance to drive? This puts more money in the pool, bringing down premiums.
- mandatory mediation at close of discovery, if arbitration cant be reasoned.
- have a sliding scale of contingency fees.
- re examine vicarious liability, agency etc.

just a start
regards jim

A comment on What Jurors Probably Don't Know About Defense Medical Experts

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:35:00 GMT

I agree with Martin- those stories are fascinating.

A comment on What Jurors Probably Don't Know About Defense Medical Experts

Martin Turner — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 20:41:09 GMT

You should do another article about doctors who previously made tons of money testifying for tobacco companies when they claimed that tobacco wasn't harmful. Some of those same doctors have been working for the insurance industry over the past 10 years to help hide the truth about the health effects of toxic mold. Dr. Raymond Harbison is one example.

A comment on Full Coverage? Not For Your Family.

Mike Bryant — Thu, 11 Jun 2009 22:14:58 GMT

We faced this issue in Minnesota also, the legislature needs to look at this kind of shenanigans, there is no way that parents know they are losing this coverage.

A comment on How Much Auto Insurance Should I Carry?

Mike Bryant — Tue, 26 May 2009 23:30:31 GMT

Very good advice, it's sad t see how many people end up buying the coverage they need after they really needed it.

A comment on Forbes Writer Recognizes Need for Tort Attorneys

Truckie D — Fri, 15 May 2009 10:57:13 GMT

Interesting post. Not only food safety, but highway safety as well.