Jeez. 336 is insane. I can see putting a cap on amounts from malpractice suits - some of the totals that are awarded get downright silly - but signing away a trial by jury? Ridiculous.
Silly, yes, but remember in many cases the legal fees are a percentage of the final award - and the jury generally knows that. Knocking 34% (or even 50%) off some of those awards can get you a more reasonable figure.
They could bring a complaint but not a full case.sartan0September 30 2005, 00:17:36 UTC
See new section 8 starting on page 12. This law change would conceivably allow the medical insurance companies to put binding arbitration in their contracts. This would eliminate the right to trial by jury. How many people would agree to this or feel forced to agree to it to have insurance? Far too many people would sign in my opinion.
So it would be retraining them from electing to a normal jury trial. Instead they would get arbribritation. The problem with arbitration is that the insurance people normally hire them. So whose side do you think they will be on?
Comments 4
Reply
[/random lecture]
Reply
WHAT?
Is it restraining them from electing jury trial, or from bringing the case entirely?
Reply
So it would be retraining them from electing to a normal jury trial. Instead they would get arbribritation. The problem with arbitration is that the insurance people normally hire them. So whose side do you think they will be on?
Reply
Leave a comment