Frivolous Lawsuits

Justice, Tranquility and The Greed for Money

Lynn Hubbard is handicapped. She happens to also have her own law firm. In the past year, she sued more than 600 nearly irreproachable institutions for over two million dollars. Hubbard and her entourage of scheming lawyers have not done anything illegal. Some may argue that she has simply exercised her right to the legal system. In any case, Hubbard is part of the growing American society that has discovered large money in mass litigation. This rise in greedy and manipulative lawyers has provided Americans with a skewed financial interest in the American courtroom and has hindered the justice system as a whole. Congress must reexamine tort reform to provide Americans with a trustworthy and secure justice system from frivolous lawsuits.

As American citizens we do it everyday: we see something wrong and form ideas of suing. Whether our intentions are resolute or passive, the simple gesture itself poses a series of questions for why Americans find the courtrooms a haven to the solutions for their troubles. Although our forefathers didn't plan on suits like suing McDonalds for serving hot coffee or causing obesity in children in America, they did create a judicial system that was easily accessible and fair. If examining the root of the problem, we must look back over 200 years ago, when our forefathers envisioned a country with justice and equality, without the idea of abusing the legal system with the intention of financial betterment in mind. In fact, over the past 50 years, America has resorted to the legal system with that exact intention. A major gateway to this broad social change occurred when congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This era, known as the "due process revolution," was when lawyers won criminal defendants the right to a lawyer and a hearing (Jost). The aged and disabled began fighting for their rights, and eventually employees in the workplace caught on to the courtroom trend and established sexual harassment laws in the 1980's that brought the courtroom into the workplace. While ease of access to the courtroom is a major advantage in America, this ongoing trend has provoked too much interest in swindling money out of the judicial system. This rise in greed has replaced fairness and community values.

In Thomas F. Burke's book, Lawyers, Lawsuits and Legal Rights, he proposes that we "blame the founding fathers for their deep mistrust of centralized authority and their glorified view of self-reliance" (Burke 12). His argument, which focuses on the separation of powers in the American government, explains why Americans rush to the courtrooms unlike other democratic countries. The concept of "checks and balances," America's system of separated powers, limited national control over state and local police forces and independent judiciary, was intended to protect American citizens from tyranny (Burke 24). However, it has also made it harder for elected leaders to get things done. Take Britain, Germany, or France, for instance, all of which have centralized governments that provide them with safeguards and social welfare benefits. Instead of national healthcare that is practiced throughout Europe, "Americans get proposals for a 'patients' bill of rights' that would allow the sick to sue their managed-care companies" (Burke 22). The problem has become so out of control in the United States, doctors in Florida, New Jersey, and West Virginia went on strike earlier this year. Delaying surgeries, in an effort to decrease annual insurance premiums of over $100,000, doctors asked Congress for reform on malpractice liability and lowered caps on "pain and suffering." Eduardo Esper, a cardiothoracic surgeon in Wheeling, West Virginia, was part of the walk out that occurred early in January of 2003. "We're not prepared, having spent all night with a patient, for that patient to come back and sue us. And the majority of the time those suits are promoted by lawyers that I believe are greedy," (Adamson 18). On the other hand, Dante Marra, an orthopedic surgeon who was also part of the strike, is prepared to face the changes that have complicated his career. "Everything is in my wife's name. I can't even participate in the American dream of owning a home, because it would be fair game for a trial lawyer," (Adamson 18). Bush and his administration have focused on this problem and have proposed a cap on so called "pain and suffering" for $250,000. Pain and suffering is referred to as non-economical damages that will not hinder a person's capability to earn an income. Take Forest Bounds, for instance. The three-year-old had a rare condition that would make it difficult for him to urinate. During surgery in an effort to correct the problem, something went wrong and Forest will have to urinate through a hole created by his doctors. He will most likely be sexually impaired for the rest of his life. Despite his disability, Forest will function normally in all other human aspects. His parents have asked the courts for nearly over $750,000 dollars in compensation for pain and suffering. If Congress passes legislation proposed by President Bush, insurance companies will be protected from paying such high reimbursement rates, in effect lowering premiums for doctors and hospitals. However, this issue becomes much more complex when viewing this tort reform as placing a price on life. In the recent unfortunate death of 17-yaer-old Jesica Santillian, doctors inserted the wrong blood type for her heart transplant, forcing her body to reject all organs and die. Under Bush's plan, Jesica's family will receive $250,000 for the doctor's mistake. While I applaud the Bush administration for taking viable steps towards stopping the practice of frivolous lawsuits, I do not feel that it is in my position to place a price tag on a human life.

While tragic cases such as these place insurance companies, doctors, legislators and families in an ethical and legal dilemma, it is the lawyers who pursue a common practice known as "ambulance chasing," that causes the root of all of these problems. Having originally acquired its name from personal injury lawyers, this immoral method is applied when a law firm contacts a recent accident victim and pries them into taking their cases to court. In many states, laws have been instilled that ban ambulance chasing - specifically accident victims - however money-hungry lawyers have found ways to outthink the system. Hubbard is a perfect example of such a lawyer. Hubbard and her hired associates have visited hundreds of businesses, which offer services to the public. Prying their way into restaurants, malls, and medical offices, to name