At the risk of this becoming a lawyer bashing thread
let me say at the front end I think society is better served when lawyers can be kept out of our individual lives. I turn away probably 80% of potential clients or advise them how to deal with government or the insurance industry on their own. But if they run into a snag, you can bet big brother is gonna lawyer up against the little guy. So often they have no choice but to retain their own advocates. I think its myopic to universally blame lawyers for everything from big government to outrageous insurance premiums to unaffordable healthcare to...ad nauseum. True, our society has become litigenous, and while lawyers may contribute in a large part, we are not solely to blame.
Milt...when you were sued under the WC system, did your insurance carrier pay for your attorney? If they didn't, they were supposed to. You don't have to go into details, but was the mountain started by your insurance company not paying a legitmate claim? Perhaps it was a bad employee trying to milk the system....but that employee had to be the one that listened to some ambulance chaser, no? If the employee had been a stand up person, why didn't he work with you and the insurance company? I understand your frustration but the lawyers are not operating in a vacuum. Is it solely the fault of lawyers that the Cali legislature (elected primarily by non-lawyers) passes laws that are anti-business? Believe me there is plenty of blame to go around.
Good for you for finding a way around the system so you are not held captive by the WC insurance companies. Are you satisfied with the level of your auto insurance premiums? No? So why not find a way around auto insurance? Oh, I see....you gotta have a car ergo you gotta pay car insurance. Well, some businesses gotta have some employees ergo they have to have WC insurance according to the public policy set by the elected officials.
So lets throw the lawyers out and go to arbitration. Who watches the arbiters to make sure they follow the law. Who picks the arbiters. What if the agency regulating arbiters onkly appoints those who are pro-employee? Or pro-employer? Talk about a kettle of squid...
You doctor's release form is not an appropriate analogy. Yup,in using his services you sign a release saying you won't hold him responsible for any mistakes but if you do you'll agree to arbitration. But your employee is not seeking your services, you are seeking the employees services. To make your analogy proper, YOU (as employer) would have to sign a release saying I'm gonna let you work for me but if you fuch up I can't sue you or fire you. That what you want?
Jim...trust me I feel your pain in my own business. And with my personal insurance. How many of us have had a fender bender and paid it out of pocket to keep our rates from going up? I know I have. And I have paid employees' minor medical expenses and time off for work injuries out of my own pocket. Fortunately, I've never had a major work related injury. Nor have I had a claim in 25 years on my auto policy. But if I have a blowout on the interstate at 70 mph, veer into another car loaded with mom and three kids and they plow into a tree killing mom and brain damaging one of the babies, I hope my $1.5 mil insurance limits will be enough to take care of the survivors. And hopefully it will be enough that I don't lose everything I've worked for.
I know you were being sarcastic in hoping one of your employees would be seriously injured so you could make a claim and see your premiums would double. Would you be equally as sarcastic to hope you could avail yourself of an insurance claim if it were your wife I killed and your child I rendered brain damaged?
Off the soap box now....if someone has a better solution to resolve the public policy in competing societal interests, come forward.