My experience with lawsuits is that there are frivolous ones filed solely to expend the resources of the defendent that leave you no legal recourse. I would be bankrupt without an umbrella policy right now regarding one and have a friend being harrassed in another. One involves a person with an oversensitive ego pursuing defamation and slander, the other involves trying to get someone kicked out of a lease of an office space because they want it back now. Medical malpractice is sky high in part because of it as well-there is a difference between malpractice and a bad outcome and juries don't know the difference. Why is no energy spent clearing that up? The trial lawyers association spends tons of money courting democrats in particular to allow this cash flow to continue while offering no solutions.

Ralph,

First let me thank you for posting your comments. Perhaps the best response to some of your comments would be to compare the total number of frivolous lawsuits filed in this nation to the total number of cases which truly have merit. A great majority of cases which have been filed in this country are not high profile cases because they do have merit. However, many do not and should be promptly dismissed and the offending party should be sanctioned. We agree on this point. Our Rules of Civil Procedure and Arizona statutes already allow judges to sanction somebody who files a frivolous lawsuit so that the defendant does not have to face any out-of-pocket expenses.

However, what about the other cases? Should we change the law even further to limit lawsuits at the expense of the real substantive cases? Does a person have the right to pursue a lawsuit against a surgeon who operated on the wrong knee? Does a patient have the right to sue a pharmacist who dispensed the anti-psychotic medication Zyprexa rather than the anti-allergy medicine Zyrtec? These cases present real examples of patients who suffered actual harm as a result of faulty medical care. Are these frivolous lawsuits? Are they the results of bad oucomes or medical or pharmacy negligence? I have written in the past about research by the Institute of Medicine which estimates that between 44,000 and 98,000 patients die annually from preventable medical errors. If these deaths are caused by PREVENTABLE medical errors, should they be considered bad outcomes or medical malpractice? By the way, I believe that defense attorneys do a great job of distinguishing between cases involving bad outcomes and cases involving actual medical malpractice. Also, Arizona juries have seen and heard all the rhetoric about frivolous lawsuits and doctors and already review lawsuits with careful scrutiny and considerable skepticism.

I must respectfully disagree somewhat with your suggestion that trial lawyer associations do not offer solutions. First, I do not believe that the solution of government intervention into private sector affairs has ever really been an efficient approach to solve problems. Therefore, I do not believe governments should impose draconian limits on an aggrieved person's right to sue nor do I believe that the government should impose draconian limits on an insurance company's right to earn record profits.

Generally speaking, recommended solutions to problems arise in the context of discussion about the proper standard of care in litigation. Solutions to problems often arise on a case by case basis based not on the attorney but on testifying experts who are subject to rigorous cross-examination and who provide useful recommendations and solutions.

I believe that change and innovation comes from researchers, organizations such as the Institute of Medicine, the National Institute of Health and other experts or organizations who are subject to rigorous cross-examination or peer-review. In the course of litigation, lawyers facilitate this discussion and debate about solutions to problems as well.

I also truly believe that litigation can and does lead to positive change. Corporate defendants make positive safety-related changes as a result of litigation. Pharmacy defendants which have been sued for dispensing incorrect medications make changes to medication dispensing safety systems. Seatbelts and airbags exist in cars and other safety-devices exist in other products in part based on the use of litigation as a safety tool.

Lawyers make a positive change by using litigation tools, demanding accountability and creating incentives to make products or services safer. I can accept the fact that many lawsuits are frivolous and should be dismissed immediately if it means that the ones which do have merit and lead to positive change continue forward.

Thank you again for your comments and I hope we hear from you again.