[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Dueller

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.

Well, obviously I touched a nerve. Your comments are to be expected since you're a lawyer. It's normal for you to defend your chosen trade, even though you really didn't have to.

OK, since you did, I have to respond. You make good points (some) and you have disussed this before many times or you contemplated your thoughts for a good period before posting. However, as logical as your statement is that the doctor release is backwards, I differ.

Logic can be manipulated just as statistics and you've done just that, IMHO. In the employer/employee relationship, I may be seeking the services of the employee, but my accountability is similar to the doctor's. As the employer, I am to provide a safe working environment and be responsible for any (read: ANY) injuries. This should equate to the doctor being responsible for what he is insured for. Therefore, the release should not necessarily say, "...I'm gonna let you work for me but if you fuch up I can't sue you or fire you." Rather, it would be more of a two way agreement allowing me (or my ins co) some relief from the "ambulance chasers." The AC's, or any other counsel, bring the ins co's laywers into the fold and raise the cost of insurance.

I've been down that road, spent 3 years in the CA Workers Compensation Court system and seen how it works. It's a colossal circus and total waste save for a unique case or two, now and then, which could be taken to civil court if all else fails. Just that fact that the defendant must see the the doctors on the lawyers' payroll (don't dispute that or I'll really come on here with a rant like you've never seen with hard, hard evidence) so as to provide for the opposing opinion, makes for a tremendous increase in the expense of litigating a case.

In case you're not following me, let me make it clear that I'm talking about (at this point) a fictional case where the injured employee gets treatment provided by the employer, or employer's ins co, and then contacts a lawyer (or the other way around). At this point, the defendant is ordered to see another doctor for a "second opinion." Usually, the 2nd opinion is in favor of the plaintiff's point of view, that the patient/defendant is entitled to no more. With the cost rise at this point, the patient could have instead received a LOT more benefits of different types.

I think arbitration could relieve this scenario of many of its flaws.

"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." Now, you're really off base here with your analogies. First of all, I did not find a way around anything. I simply refuse to hire anyone. If I do, I rent them temporarily. No headaches and I'm guaranteed sobriety and performance or I get another. I guess I don't have to respond to the next statement about getting around auto ins.

"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."


I will not go into this as I've discussed this in detail a couple of times before on these type of threads with the lawyer vs. the anti-lawyer barking at each other. The "defendant" was a neighbor and an immigrant to this country (legally--sponsored by the Catholic church) who was doing some unrelated work for me in another location. what got me was his pay for his contract work that was regular and similar over a short period. This was a very unfortunate coincidence that worked against me. What's more, the "employee" walked into my shop w/o permission and used a table saw w/o my permission and got hurt. His duties in another location were related to painting, not power equipment. This person used to also open my garage (remember, he was a neighbor as well) w/o permission and use power tools w/o permission. What's more, I didn't know this until later. But, when he got hurt (minor, no severed digits or anything like that), it was my fault. Well, that's BULL SH!!!T.