Kat and Ken,

OK, now I'm going to argue the other side, just for fun!

By placing a cap of say, $250,000 on damages, it makes it very difficult
for people who have been victims of malpractice affecting a minor, or
even some people with disabilities.  This happens because monetary
damages are usually based on lost earning potential, and it's difficult
to judge what a child's earning potential is.  If a kid gets hurt at
sixteen through medical negligence, who knows if he would have ended up
flipping burgers at McDonald's or if he would have become a
neurosurgeon?

By the same token Kat, before you and I became established in our
careers, if someone had attempted to guess our earning potential, that
figure would probably have been quite low.

Kendall

"Of all the tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims
may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons
than under omnipotent moral busy-bodies. The robber baron's cruelty may
sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those
who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do
so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis

-----Original Message-----
From: ken barber [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 05, 2006 10:37 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Breaking News - Heart attack victim wins $4.5 million in
case against Vioxx-maker Merck

i'm with kat. 

--- Kathleen Salkin <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> But ... but ... these sort of suits are a major
> factor in our  
> increasing medical bills.  I think there ought to be
> a low cap on the  
> awards given by juries.
> 
> Kat
> 

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy