Mason Rountree
-
Content Count
784 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Store
Posts posted by Mason Rountree
-
-
In college, our fraternity bought a pig, slaughtered it, and had a pig roast in the front yard of our house. Before the slaughter, my fraternity brothers fed the pig some barbecue.
Somethin' just don't seem right about that. 
Where is smokin4U when we need him/her? -
Medical bills are not exempted from the new law. A person who makes more than the median income (not technically half of working Georgians but approx. half) and has substantial medical bills but no credit card debt cannot discharge the medical bills under the new law.
-
My wife used to handle bankruptcies for clients at our law firm. I agree that many debtors are irresponsible with their credit cards, but credit card companies which offer credit to folks who have just discharged their debt are irresponsible as well. I suspect the credit is offered by the companies know that a debtor cannot discharge their debt again for another 9 years (or whatever the time is).
While most of our firm's clients had huge amounts of credit card debt for personal purchases, many of them also were insolvent because of medical expenses. We had sympathy for certain clients, such as where a family incurred significant medical expenses (not covered by insurance) after a father/husband was diagnosed with cancer or was in a severe car accident, for instance. This happened more frequently than we ever imagined.
Bankruptcy is based on the premise of getting a fresh start. I am concerned that folks who suffered catastrophic injuries and have tremendous medical expenses, but had an average income, will no longer be afforded the fresh start that bankruptcy laws envisioned. I don't condone irresponsible behavior, but not all people who file bankruptcy are irresponsible.
Frankly, for nearly all of us on Pcom, bankruptcy could be one car accident away. Be careful of what you wish for.
-
Reminds hisself not go to trail.......Dont like snakes,seen a small grey looking with spots on back on in yard yesterday it only 6 inches long gave me creppes
It must have been a French Snake if it gave you creppes.
-
buttercup:
You're right. I did read the entire thread and several attachments, though. Sorry for mistake. I know Arcaidy wasn't referring to me or any person in particular. Like Arcaidy and other posters here, I frequently use hyperbole and self-deprecating humor in my posts.
-
I'm not a scientist and have never played one on TV or on stage. I do think it is comical that 30 years ago, most of the scientific community predicted global cooling. I also find it amusing that liberals are quick to quote Keynes' statement that "in the long run we'll all be dead", which rejects the concept of progressive thought on economic issues. However, while I'm not a "left wing tree hugger", as described by buttercup, it is indisputable that earth is experiencing global warming. There are only two possible causes: industrialization or nature (or possibly a combination of both).
Like the issue of our social (in)security system (and the mindless, ignorant hope from leftists that it won't go insolvent despite indisputable evidence to the contrary), I would rather deal with the issue of global warming now, based on the best information we have. NASA is hardly a bastion for left-wing, tree huggers. Its assessment of the situation is worthy of critical review, not knee-jerk rejection of a hypothesis simply because it challenges our view of the affect humans have on the planet. To say that man cannot have a profound impact on the environment is ridiculous; otherwise, we would not be concerned about the proliferation of nuclear weapons in N. Korea, Iran or al Queda.
As a non-scientist who despised all courses ending in "ology" and instead studied economics in college, I would rather be in a position 100 years from now of saying that we did everything reasonably possible, consistent with acceptable scientific principles, to confront the threat of global warming, even if nature is later held to be the culprit. I don't want to be the generation that, a 100 or 500 years from now, is accused of ignoring empirical evidence of global warming, which could have been controlled with reasonable efforts but instead became a political football.
I don't know what the cause or the solution is. But placing our heads in the proverbial sand is not it. Is global warming a problem? If not, ignore it. If so, as most scientists agree, may the free market (with a little government coercion) fix it because in the long run, not only will we be dead, but so could our posterity.
-
Diehard:
It's around two hours excluding the standing ovation at the end, but including two intermissions.
-
Pat:
We better park in front of TBAR's office as much as possible in the next two weeks. I hear that black Lexus may be available now that it was repossessed from its owner, so we could leave it there for in front of TBAR's office for 2 weeks instead (on two parking spots, of course).
-
There is an emergency clinic in Marietta - overnight services, but expensive as I recall. If you can't find it, try calling the Vet Clinic in Marietta (I think is the name). An answering service should provide phone number. One of the vets is named Dr. Carder (from Dr. Thad Riddle's office as an alternative name), but I can't think of others. Just got back from the ER myself - kid broke arm).
-
I'm not aware of a specific statute. However, 2 statutes may be applicable depending on the facts of the case:
1. OCGA (official Code of Georgia Annotated) section 16-11-39 re: harassing telephone calls (must be repeated telephone calls) or
2. OCGA 16-10-26 re: false report of a crime (if someone calls 911 and reports crime they know was not committed. It could be argued that someone falsely reports crime if they call 911 and hang up, knowing the police must respond to the hang-up. It would be difficult to prove, though.
Hope the above is helpful. If I learn of a specific statue relating to 911, I'll PM you.
- Mason
-
You're right on, Eddie. The trial you referenced was a med mal case which resulted in a defense verdict in Fulton County. It certainly did not appear to be frivolous, and undermines those of you who say jurors are stupid and award money for no reason at all.
Nonetheless, under the new "tort reform" law just enacted last month, the plaintiff/mother in this case would be required to pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs even though the case was not frivolous. BTW: the plaintiff's attorney in this case reportedly spent around $50,000.00 out of pocket for costs (experts, etc.), not including hundreds of hours of his time in pursuing the case.
What the tort reform bill should have done was to give judges more discretion in awarding attorney's fees if the suit was deemed frivolous. The law should also redefine what is meant by "frivolous".
Instead, what we got was a cap on legitimate injuries and a "loser pays" system even when a plaintiff wins their case. As I mentioned in another thread, under the new law, if an insurance company offers $100,000 to resolve a case and the jury ultimately awards $124,999.00 to the plaintiff/injured party, the plaintiff/injured party is required to pay attorney's fees and costs to the defendant who just lost the case.
This new law applies to ALL tort cases where money is sought - for example: property damage at your home caused by an intruder, fraud committed against the elderly, negligent construction of your house by your builder.
-
hiramcouple:
The Governor already signed the bill about 2-3 weeks ago. It became effective immediately upon signing. The only way to change the law now is to enact another law.
I don't want to hijack this thread, but in a related issue, what do folks think about having to pay attorney's fees to the defendant even if the plaintiff/injured party wins in certain situations, which is required under this new law?
For instance, if insurance company offers $100K to settle case and plaintiff rejects offer but jury awards $124,999.00, the plaintiff must pay the defendant's attorney's fees and costs. In some cases, the defendant's attorney's fees and costs will exceed the judgment in the case, so the plaintiff wins the case but must pay money out of his/her pocket for attorney's fees to the Defendant who just lost the case. On the other hand, under this scenario, if the jury awards $125,000.00 or more, the plaintiff cannot recover attorney's fees from defendant. Is this fair??? Did you even realize this was what the "tort reform" bill did?
IMO: this new "offer of judgment rule" IN ALL TORT CASES (not just med mal)undermines the civil justice system as much as the artificial cap on quality of life damages at $350,000.00.
Surepip: is this the loser pays system you envisioned?
-
LadyMorgain:
While I agree that the new law is a travesty as it denies people the right to complete justice through a jury trial, it is possible that you could still pursue a claim.
I assume from your post that the alleged negligent treatment was from a visit to the emergency room at Grady. The new tort reform law provides that a plaintiff must prove gross negligence in order to recover for treatment received in an emergency room, which is a much higher standard of proof than simple negligence.
However, there is a bill pending which would fix this part of the new law by returning the standard to simple negligence, but the plaintiff must prove his/her case by clear and convincing evidence, rather than preponderance of the evidence. I understand this bill may come to the floor in the Senate this session. In other words, get a second opinion from another attorney. I don't handle med mal cases, but if you PM me I can give the names of a few attorneys who practice such law.
The greater travesty of this bill is that if you have a tort claim for any money damages (whether med mal, auto accident, property damage, etc.) and the defendant offers you money to settle, you must get 125% of the offer from the defendant or you are required to pay their attorney's fees and costs.
For instance, if the insurance company offers $100,000.00 and a jury awards $110,000.00, YOU LOSE. YOU MUST PAY THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEY'S FEES AND COSTS!!! As a conservative Republican, I am outraged by this aspect of the bill. In other words, if you win your case, you may still have to pay money to the defendant for filing the lawsuit. I guess this is what the tort reformers mean by "frivolous" lawsuits. This is the "common sense" tort reform bill my Republican friends have just enacted.
I do support tort reform, but this is not the solution.
-
West Atlanta Pediatrics (corner of 120 & 92) Dr. Dyar is wonderful!!
-
I forgot to mention that the event will be outdoors in front of the Annex. That's probably self-evident.
-
The Chief Judge of the Georgia Supreme Court is coming today at 3:00 pm to swear in our new Public Defender, Tom Driggers. This is part of the new indigent defense system that has gone into effect in the last few months. Speaker Glenn Richardson will also attend. The news channels will cover the event.
I think there is a reception planned for afterward. The public is invited.
-
Lady Morgain:
You are correct that the cap is on quality of life damages (pain and suffering), not on lost wages. One of the problems, though, is that certain classes of people do not "earn" money and therefore their sole recovery is for quality of life damages. For instance, children do not earn money so there are no lost wages if they are rendered a quad because of a physician's negligence. Likewise, stay-at-home mothers do not "earn" a living, according to the State of Georgia, so their recover would be limited to $250K. Finally, the elderly (who are often retired or employed in occupations that don't necessarily reflect their skill) are limited to a cap of $250K.
Subdivider:
I did not enter law school because I saw dollar signs. Obviously, everyone who enters an occupation or profession hopes to be adequately compensated for their work. I realize your statement did not impugn all who attend law school, but I am also quick to defend a profession I consider honorable and indespensable to an orderly society.
Each time I defend a person who is falsely accused of a crime, or assist someone with being compensated for an a legitimate injury who was denied their claim for bogus reasons, or represent a child whose parents have abused or neglected them, or create a corporation for an innovative new business which provides tax savings and protection from liability, I feel as though I am helping others.
I'm sorry you feel the way you do about the legal profession but assure you that the vast majority of attorneys are good people who sincerely seek to promote fairness, equity and justice. Sometime we're on opposite sides of a case, but we almost always respect the institution which affords common people an opportunity to seek redress in front of an impartial tribunal. I will unapologetically defend the legal system, which was carefully created by our founding fathers, and likewise seek to expose and eliminate those in my profession who undermine it.
-
Arcaidy:
On average payments, I noticed you provided only 1996. What about the other years, listed below (in approximation):
1992 - $300,000
1993 - $225,000
1994 - $225,000
1995 - $200,000
1997 - $225,000
1998 - $275,000
1999 - $350,000
2000 - $275,000
2001 - $275,000
2002 - $260,000
When adjusted for inflation, the average payout by MAG has gone down by over 5% since 1991.
On million dollar payouts, consider the following:
There were 8 in 1992 when MAG insured far less than 1/2 of the physicians in the State. That number increased to 12 in 2001, despite the fact that MAG now insures over 70% of the physicians in Georgia. It is unfair to compare its payouts from 12 years ago when it insured a fraction of the physicians it does today. You have to adjust for the increased number of insureds.
Do you have any evidence that these payouts were for frivolous claims? Somehow I doubt it. These are, in all likelihood, catastrophic claims from legitimate injuries.
Finally, even MAG admitted in a January 2002 publication of MAGnet that "we reduced the average cost of each claim regardless of a significant nationwide increase in claim severity."
-
BTW: MAG Mutual recently reported that in 2001, it had almost $600,000,000.00 in assets with $176,000,000.00 in policy holder surpluses. It also received an "A" rating by A.M. Best for being in good financial condition.
According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, in the year 2000, med mal insurers were the third most profitable of all insurers nationwide. According to this organization, in Georgia, malpractice insurers were more profitable than any other line of insurance except for a few commercial and private auto lines. This was the last time such figures were available.
IT IS A MYTH THAT MAG MUTUAL IS LOSING MONEY. TO THE CONTRARY, IT HAS SUBSTANTIAL ASSETS AND MAKES SUBSTANTIAL PROFITS.
Now, MAG wants the government to guarantee even more profits. This is anti-free market and anti-consumer: two things Clark Howard would say make for a BIG mistake.
-
I read it the first and scanned through the second time. The article has NOTHING to do with Georgia.
The current legislation only affects Georgia. Obviously, we can draw parallels to experiences in other states when it comes to what happens after caps are enacted. But to rely on an article having nothing to do with Georgia to justify your assumption that physicians are leaving in droves seems misplaced.
Frankly, I think there are shortages of physicians in rural areas. My brother was the medical director for a facility treating indigents in rural Georgia. He had a very difficult time hiring physicians, but not because of malpractice premiums. Physicians simply don't want to live in those areas for personal/lifestyle reasons. Moreover, jurors in rural counties are very conservative when it comes to awarding money to injured people. I can only speak for my experience in Paulding, Polk and Harlason, but I think you would be hard pressed to find a case where a rural juror has even awarded $250K in quality of life damages.
To attract physicians to those areas, we need insurance reform. We need to lessen the governmental requirements as to the amuont of reserves needed to begin an insurance company. Right now, I believe an insurance company needs $5,000.000.00 in reserves and must comply with other governmental regulations. If we reduce the amount of reserves to, say, $2,000,000.00, insurance companies would have a greater likelihood of starting up. Naturally, MAG Mutual (Georgia's largest med mal insurer) is opposed to such changes because it increases competition. I also think insurance companies should be allowed to choose which counties they want to insure physicians in. Right now, insurers must agree to insure in all counties, so if a small collaborative of physicians in north Georgia want to self-insure, they would have to offer insurance to phsyicians in Fulton County.
-
Arcaidy:
According to Forbes Magazine (May 13, 2002), the number of physicians in Georgia per 100,000 people increased from 126 in 1975 to 224 in 1999.
Statistically, therefore, the number of physicians in Georgia has increased by 78% per capita since from 1975 to 1999. It is a myth to say that doctors are leaving the state is large numbers.
-
Braves' Dave:
Here's your hard evidence that enacting a $250K cap does not reduce malpractice rates:
The nation's largest medical liability insurance company, GE Medical Protective, recently filed a plan with the Texas Dept. of Insurance for a 19% premium increase on doctors only six months after Texas passed a $250K cap on quality of life damages. In its proposed increase, the company admitted that "[n]oneconomic damages (ie quality of life damages) are a small percentage of losses paid."
Moreover, in California, after a $250K cap was enacted, premiums increased by 450% over the next 13 years. Premiums finally started decreasing after voters enacted reforms which strictly scrutinized rate increases and required a rollback.
Arcaidy:
You say it is a fact that doctors are leaving Georgia in large numbers. Please provide a cite. The largest number of physicians in Georgia are located in Counties where the highest awards for medical malpractice cases occur (Fulton, Dekalb, Gwinett). I'm still surprised by self-described anti-statists who want the government to interfere with a consitutional right to a jury trial. I assume you support the death penalty. Why is it that you would trust a jury with determining whether someone can live or die, but you can't trust them to make a financial decision. It is the ultimate in governmental intrusion for the State to define the value of someone's quality of life.
You say you are concerned with increased litigation apparently. I would predict that enacting a cap will actually increase litigation because insurance companies can litigate cases at almost any cost since they know the worst case scenario is an artificial cap on quality of life damages at $250K.
Surepip:
I hope I'm one of those who you consider a friend. I would disagree with you, though, on the currently proposed concept of loser pays. The only party who would pay, in the event of a loss, is the injured party, not the negligent medical provider. Also, how do you define who loses? If a party sues for $100K and is only awarded $95,000, does that mean the party lost?
-
Our church, Episcopal Church of the Ascension in Cartersville, is having a service at 12:15 p.m. with Eucharist and the imposition of ashes. It is a quaint church built in the 1870's with lots of stained-glass windows, pine floors and 8 pews on each side of the entry. It's definitely worth a visit and the folks are wonderful. There is also a 7: 00 pm service our family is attending. I can send you directions/other info if interested.
- Mason
-
Johnnyatlanta:
Senate Bill 3 is absolutely not the answer. From reading your post, it sounds as if you agree. In terms of my personal belief, I trust the people of Paulding County to make such decisions, not the politicians under the Gold Dome. Senate Bill 3 essentially says that the State of Georgia cannot trust the people of Paulding County to make good decisions and that the government knows better what the value of someone's life is rather than people who hear the evidence. This is most disturbing to me, as it contravenes my philosophy of governance.
Foxmeister:
You say you are "sure" of other frivolous medical malpractice claims and that such cases are clogging our courts. Rather than simply speculating, please provide concrete examples. I do not handle med mal cases for a variety of reasons. One reason is that they are very difficult to pursue and very costly. The typical out-of-pocket expense to pursue such a case is at least $50,000.00. In Georgia, insurance companies rarely settle med mal claims. They litigate them and, frankly, are normally successful. Our courts in Georgia (and especially Paulding County) are backed up because of divorce/child custody and criminal cases, not personal injury/med mal cases. My recollection from the last statistics provided for Paulding County is that less than 1% of all lawsuits filed in Paulding County are med mal cases.
Last week, I asked Judge Bill Foster if he ever recalls a contested case in Paulding County where a jury awarded $250,000.00 in pain and suffering. Until yesterday, he had been a superior court judge for around 20 years. He recalls no such cases.
I appreciate your sharing the story with your son, and respect your decision not to pursue a claim. Such cases, though, are still very difficult to successfully prosecute. And while you thoughtfully decided to accept a release of your child's rights, I don't think the State of Georgia should force all Georgians to accept it.
Is this wrong?
in Internet Cafe
Posted
You swine.