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