“Lawsuit Hell,” your Dec. 15 cover story, is an excellent description of a civil-justice system run amok. The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. There are some common-sense legal reforms that can protect victims and hold professionals and businesses accountable without turning our civil-justice system on its head. A recent bipartisan compromise on class-action-lawsuit legislation in the Senate is a perfect example. The bill, which is expected to pass early next year, would curb venue shopping by moving large, nationwide class-action lawsuits to federal court, where they belong. It would also stop abusive coupon settlements in which consumers receive coupons and their lawyers get all of the cash. Democrats and Republicans can and should work together to bring reason back to what is, after all, the greatest civil-justice system in the world. Thomas J. Donohue, President, CEO U.S. Chamber of Commerce Washington, D.C.
Our country is blessed with a tradition of seeking justice in the courtroom and not in the street. The individual’s right to seek redress of grievances in an orderly way is not only a treasured tradition, but a hallmark of a civilized society. Newsweek’s anecdotal, rather than empirical, report of lawsuits that appear to go wrong would have readers believe that tort cases always do. In fact, the overwhelming majority of cases filed each year represent genuine issues of harm and suffering. The overwhelming majority of decisions that result represent justice. Courts have ways of weeding out frivolous lawsuits. Overly punitive judgments may be appealed. There are multiple remedies for corporations, government agencies, hospitals and the like that believe they are sued unfairly. Being able to be heard in a court of law is the individual’s principal safeguard–one that makes our country safer, our products better, our services more attuned to the needs of individuals. Destroy that ability and we slice a major gash in the protective bulwark of our justice system. Dennis W. Archer, President American Bar Association Chicago, Ill.
When will the madness end? The surgeon who saved my life 13 years ago just informed me in a follow-up visit to another operation that he may have to move out of the state because he can’t afford to practice here anymore. His malpractice insurance has increased almost twofold from the previous year. Our community may lose this good doctor because of the greedy among us. When are we going to demand that politicians limit these unjustified lawsuits that will surely cause pain and suffering when doctors can no longer afford to practice? Heather Woiciechowski Plantsville, Conn.
I was recently called for jury duty in the civil court. During voir dire I was asked about large malpractice awards. I said that plaintiffs generally ask for entirely too much so as to pay the massive contingency fees of their attorneys. I was told to leave before I even got to sit back down. James F. Cataldi McKees Rocks, Pa.
The Dec. 15 cover featured a priest, a doctor and a police officer. I suggest that your photo also include a sexually assaulted young boy, a one-armed woman and a bruised and beaten black man. These frivolous plaintiffs may be abusing the sympathy of ignorant, unsophisticated common jurors for their own profit, but, in the interest of balance, surely they belong on the cover as well. Aaron Been Tallahassee, Fla.
Americans should be aware that “lawsuit hell” doesn’t affect just those who are sued–excessive lawsuits and fear of litigation impacts the daily life of every citizen. A recent study estimates that every U.S. citizen spends an extra $721 per year to cover the cost of lawsuits. But we each lose more than money to lawsuit abuse. Accessible, affordable health care disappears as doctors curb or shutter their practices. Potentially lifesaving drugs are kept off the market because pharmaceutical companies curtail research. And when new medications are approved, doctors hesitate to prescribe them. Small business owners fear that one claim, even the wackiest of lawsuits, could drive them out of business and throw their employees out of work. Employees–if they aren’t concerned about possibly losing their jobs–fear their health-insurance benefits will disappear, shrink or require them to pick up more of the cost. While legislation has offered some relief to the abuse of our civil-justice system, true reform won’t happen until people start taking personal responsibility for their actions and stop using lawsuits as a way to solve every problem. Bill Summers, President Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse Weslaco, Texas
It is unconscionable to lump medical malpractice in with all the other lawsuits. The epidemic of medical mistakes kills nearly as many people as AIDS, breast cancer and car accidents combined. And that doesn’t include the many thousands of people like my 13-year-old son, who became quadriplegic at the age of 7 due to agonizing delays in the ER/intensive-care units at three different hospitals and a missed blood clot after he collided with another player on the soccer field. Payouts for medical malpractice account for less than 1 percent of total health-care costs, and only 3 to 5 percent of doctors account for the majority of malpractice cases. A likely reason the insurance industry has lobbied for award caps is its widespread accounting mismanagement coupled with the economic downturn of the past few years. Most disturbing is that the health-care industry itself has not responded to the epidemic of medical mistakes in a way that any other sector would be compelled to do if nearly 100,000 people were dying yearly because of preventable errors. It would be far more appropriate to have measures in place that would swiftly remove those 3 to 5 percent of doctors from practicing medicine in these types of life-or-death situations than to cap medical-malpractice awards. Fabiola Armitage Jacksonville, Fla.
Stuart Taylor Jr. is presented as the main reporter of your article “Civil Wars.” In fact, he is a professional editorial proponent of dismembering the civil-justice system and its hallmark trial by jury. This bias is a secret to your readers. By failing to inform them of Taylor’s agenda where it counts–in the context of the article–and by presenting his radical views as journalism that hews to the accepted standards of objectivity and fairness, you do your readers, the good name of your magazine and the profession of journalism a grave injustice. This is not a trivial matter. Our civil-justice system is American bedrock–not perfect, but full of legal protections that put justice in the hands of the people. It has served our nation faithfully and well for more than 200 years, and is justifiably the envy of people throughout the world. Any discussion of radical changes should be careful, reasoned and many-sided. I direct your readers to the Web site of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, www.atla.org, to find a point-by-point correction and clarification of the half-truths and misinformation in your coverage. David S. Casey Jr., President Association of Trial Lawyers of America Washington, D.C.
Editor’s Note: NEWSWEEK received a large volume of mail from trial lawyers critical of our cover story. We stand by the story as both accurate and fair. The criticisms are for the most part easily refuted with material on the public record. Example: We reported that in Kentucky, a mother sued her daughter’s school after the girl had performed oral sex on a boy during a schoolbus ride returning from a marching-band contest. The woman blamed poor adult supervision, saying her daughter had been forced. The Association of Trial Lawyers of America challenged this reporting, citing an article in The Lexington Herald-Leader which, ATLA claimed, reported that the Board of Education ruled that the act was forced and that the girl had been sexually assaulted. The article, in fact, merely reported the lawsuit’s claim that the school board had ruled the act was forced. The board denied in court papers having made such a determination. It also denied that the girl had been sexually assaulted. A correction, and a clarification: We reported that “insurance companies pay to settle the vast majority of claims” in medical-malpractice lawsuits. In fact, they pay to settle roughly 30 percent of such claims. We also reported that a jury delivered a $70 million malpractice judgment against Stanford University’s hospital. Under a California law permitting payment of such awards in periodic installments, a judge could allow the defendants to satisfy that judgment by putting aside a much lesser amount (probably between $5 million and $8 million) now. No such determination has yet been made; even if that happens, the plaintiff is still to be paid $70 million over time.
A Tyrant Captured
Will the left now finally drop the “where are the weapons of mass destruction” banter (“How We Got Saddam,” Dec. 22)? Can we all agree that Iraq’s meanest, cruelest and deadliest weapon of mass destruction was found in a hole on Dec. 13? Congratulations go to America’s bravest men and women for yet another job well done, and to our commander in chief who has the courage of his convictions. Robert Kuesel Milwaukee, Wis.
Saddam Hussein’s capture has not been cheap. Hundreds of young Americans have lost their lives and thousands have been seriously maimed. Thousands of Iraqis have been killed and more than $100 billion has been spent on the war and reconstruction. Meanwhile, the weapons of mass destruction have not been found, worldwide terrorist activity has not decreased and Osama bin Laden has not been caught. As the cost in lives and money continues to mount, several questions must be asked: Was the capture of Saddam worth the price? Are we safer? Are the Iraqis safer? Dick Meis Murrieta, Calif.
Miramax for the Record
Movie-studio executives today face the same problem as old gunfighters of the West: our reputation precedes us. Even when we are especially gracious, we still end up the subject of apocryphal stories of memorable confrontations, in this case involving “House of Sand and Fog” director Vadim Perelman (“The Ego Has Landed,” Dec. 22). After his NEWSWEEK interview, Vadim called to warn me that I may not be happy with his portrayal of our first meeting, as he made a special effort to be colorful for the magazine. In that regard, he succeeded. Unfortunately, it did not reflect the reality, and he apologized for the indiscretion. I did meet with Vadim at the Peninsula Hotel and was gracious and respectful. He knew I was there on behalf of Todd Field, who had just made the Oscar-nominated “In the Bedroom” for us. At the time Miramax was close to cofinancing “Sand and Fog.” I offered Vadim the chance to co-write and produce the film with Field–an incredible offer for someone who had until then only directed commercials. Vadim’s passion for the project led him to turn my offer down, but he eventually wrote a great script and we made a financial investment in the film by acquiring its U.K. distribution rights. I saw a rough cut of the film a few months ago and called Vadim to congratulate him and offer my support. I even met his mother and told her how proud I was of her son. My dealings with Vadim had a happy ending, and I look forward to celebrating more success with this talented young director. Harvey Weinstein Co-Chairman, Miramax Films New York, N.Y
Correction
In “The Return Of The Natural” (Dec. 15), we incorrectly identified the name of artist Lee Bontecou’s husband. He is Bill Giles.
