Bush and Frivolous Lawsuits

[journalist3072]

Bush is always going on an on about frivolous lawsuits driving doctors and OB/GYNS who can't "practice their love with women all across this country" out of business.

But I found out yesterday on Air America Radio about a frivolous lawsuit BUSH himself initiated in 1998. I looked it up online, and this is what I found out about Bush's lawsuit against Enterprise Rent-a-Car:

Bush Criticism of Frivolous Lawsuits Hypocritical
President Bush has repeatedly criticized what he calls a plague of frivolous lawsuits. In 2001, he said, "It's really important that we not have our system ladened down by unnecessary lawsuits."1 More recently he complained that "there's too many lawsuits, a lot of them frivolous and junk lawsuits."2 Yet, as the historical record shows, it was George W. Bush who in 1998 actually hired a trial lawyer and filed a lawsuit against a rental car company that legal experts called "unnecessary."

On November 2, 2000, the New York Daily News reported that Bush sued Enterprise Rent-a-Car in Austin over a fender bender involving his daughter, even though no one was hurt, and insurance would have covered the collision.3 Bush "also tried to sue the woman who was driving the rental car but was unable to serve her with papers." Lawyers familiar with Texas insurance law "said such a suit would normally be unnecessary." One lawyer involved in the case said Bush sued because he "had paid for the repairs out of his own pocket" and that Bush pursued legal action even though the parties "exhaustively tried to resolve it short of a lawsuit."

[txaslftist]

1. GWB: "Do as I say, not as I do."

Advocating to limit access to the courts is no new thing among Republicans. In doing so, they are protecting the vested interests of their constituents, the insurance companies and doctors.

Consider: In each case where a doctor has to pay out a large judgment in a civil suit, at least 10 of 12 jurors of ordinary citizens determined that doctor's level of care in the case fell below the minimal standards of competence.

That means he screwed up. That verdict is reached after both sides have a full and fair opportunity to put on experts to say why it was or was not negligent.

If you must limit damages or limit liability, that is a statement that basically says this process is flawed. If the process is flawed, it is flawed across the board in civil law. Limits on liability are a slap in the face of the American court system.

Case in point: A woman I knew was literally run over by a car. She went to the ER, and amazingly, the ER doctor (who apparently believed in miracles) conducted an exam and determined there were only serious bruises. No second opinion, no x-rays. Not so amazingly, the miracle was not, in fact a miracle. After she was sent home with a prescription for Tylenol III, her internal injuries killed her. She was a social worker of about 20 years, with kids.

Should the doctor be sued? Obviously yes. Should he lose his license over this? IMHO, yes.

Damage caps are BS. Doctors, like every one else, should be held fully responsible for their screw-ups.

[BlueEyedSon]

2. kick