posted by Anon
There is now a great controversy over the amount of monetary awards that are granted
to plaintiffs in malpractice lawsuits brought against doctors and other medical personnel by patients. For instance, James Nelson dies of cancer and his widow feels that he did not receive proper medical treatment. If he had, he would have survived. She files a lawsuit against the hospital and doctors. The jury awards her $40,000,000 in damages.
Do you feel such awards are excessive? Why or why not?
Should there be a limit on the amount that can be awarded for medical malpractice suits? Why or why not?
I need to survey at least three adults and record their answers to these questions. Would anyone like to participate in the survey?
Yes, I think that award was excessive -- especially since no negligence was indicated. Cancer is often fatal, no matter what medical help the patient receives.
There probably should be a limit.
I, too, think that award was excessive. I'm not sure how to set a limit that would apply across the board, but some reasonable criteria should be established for making such awards. There are clear cases in which treatment was inappropriate or in error, and awards are due to survivors, but $40M seems excessive.