Philip K. Howard Featured in 'Scaling Back Justice?' (CBS Sunday Morning)
October 19, 2009
The CBS News Sunday Morning report that aired yesterday – titled “Scaling Back Justice?” – highlighted Philip K. Howard as the leading advocate for shifting law away from its current formulation as “a system of micromanagement [that] gets in the way of everyone’s daily choices,” and back to its intended role as “a framework for freedom.” The report featured interviews with Howard, as well as with Congressman Jim Cooper, American Teachers Federation President Randi Weingarten, New York City Department of Parks & Recreation Commissioner Adrian Benepe, and Dr. Albert Strunk of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, all of whom support Howard’s message that too much law has interfered with the freedoms of daily life. “Phil Howard is one of our heroes,” said Weingarten, referring to Howard’s advocacy for teachers. Dr. Strunk lauded Howard’s health courts proposal as an alternative to malpractice litigation, “because it would help us to remove the fear and anxiety that exists about the current system.” [CBS Sunday Morning]
Comments ( 3 )
The Counselor said:
on November 22, 2009 - 3:31 am
If done correctly, this is not a bad idea. We have removed the categories of cases before the courts ... employment discrimination cases, government contracts cases, cases of IRS, social security cases and cases of occupational accidents are but a few examples. The key is that the end of the administrative process, the matter may be appealed in court. Only a very, very few cases of many who went through the administrative process would never go that far. The statute authorizing this management system could thus put a limit on pain and suffering or prescribe the formula by which the pain and suffering can be calculated. The same goes for legal fees. Punitive damages are not recoverable. My experience has been that most of these types of cases settle long before going through the administrative process.
jercy said:
on February 22, 2010 - 10:19 am
Why does CBS have to play that annoying song at every commerical?
Right before they break for a commerical, or to show highlights from other games, CBS plays those same 11 or 12 notes. I’m so sick of that song!
Michael C. DeMoss said:
on October 19, 2009 - 6:10 pm
Health Care Reform
Medical Malpractice Tort Reform
This is a Plan that will be acceptable to Doctors, Lawyers and Patients:
I have practiced law for over 30 years.
I have experience as a medical malpractice trial lawyer, representing injured patients.
My brother and two of my nieces are practicing physicians.
Over the years, based on my experience representing patients, suing doctors; and also based on the knowledge that I obtained from my friends and family members who practice medicine, I know that there is a better way to handle medical malpractice claims; in order to lower malpractice insurance premiums, reduce the need for defensive medicine and still protect the rights of the patient.
In my law practice, I also have experience in the area of commercial real estate.
For example, when a property owner and a commercial tenant have a dispute relating to the value of a piece of land, and cannot agree on the rate of rent to pay for a ground lease, the property owner will hire a qualified appraiser, and the tenant has the right to hire their own qualified appraiser. Based on these two independent appraisals, the property owner and the tenant can usually agree to settle on a rental rate based on the two appraisals.
In the event the parties cannot agree, the two appraisers will select a third qualified appraiser who will examine the two appraisals and then do a third independent appraisal, which will be binding on both parties.
Applying this method of using “Medical Appraisers” to resolve medical malpractice claims, lawyers will still be involved in representing the patient and the doctor in the areas of fact gathering, interrogatories, depositions and other standard areas of pre-trial and discovery procedures; BUT, the matter would not go to trial, and would not be decided by a judge or a jury of citizens who have no experience or qualifications in evaluating medical malpractice.
Therefore, If a patient makes a claim against a doctor for medical malpractice, and the doctor and the patient, through their lawyers, are unable to resolve their dispute, then the doctor would be required to hire a doctor who has expertise in the field of medicine that is in dispute; and the patient would hire their own doctor who is similarly qualified, and if the patient and the doctor are not able to resolve their differences based on the two independent doctors reports, then the two doctors will hire a third medical doctor to render a final report that will establish the level of malpractice and the remedy, in the form of monetary damages.
This “Tort Reform” will reduce the level of expense and frustration involved in resolving medical malpractice claims.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael C. DeMoss
Attorney at Law
6950 France Ave S
Suite 100
Edina, MN 55435