Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Development of the American court system
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Development of the American court system
In America, the right to a civil jury trial is one of our most fundamental rights. However, many individuals cannot afford an attorney, and without an attorney to help an individual navigate the legal system, this guarantee is effectively meaningless. Also, US courts have declined to impose on the losing party the obligation to pay the winning side’s legal expenses (the American Rule). Because of these two fundamental principles in the American legal system, contingency fees have always been allowed and continue to play a predominate role in the development of US tort law. Under a contingent fee agreement, the attorney will take the case without charging any money up front and is paid only if the case is successful, typically between 25%-33.3% of the plaintiff’s total recovery. In the US, unless the case is criminal or divorce, contingency fee agreements are generally allowed. Similarly, the ABA has long regarded the contingency fee system as “squarely within the bounds of American legal ethics.” However, in the 1980s, corporations, medical associations, and the insurance industry...
Given the difficulties in the present tort system, we often become victims of the failures of medicine as opposed to beneficiaries of its many successes. Physicians have lost in that they have changed, limited, or closed their practices after having spent the most vigorous years of their lives training for such work. Patients have lost in that the physicians of their choice, with whom they have developed trusting relationships, are no longer available to care for them. It is certain that the system requires sensible reform (p.525).
In the plaintiff’s suit, he alleged the surgery did not go well because the hospital had hired a surgeon, who was not competent or qualified enough to perform the surgery therefore; the hospital was just as negligent as the doctor was. Before the trial date, Dr. Salinsky and his insurance company, Employers Mutual Liability Insurance Company of Wisconsin, settled with plantiff out of court on the basis they will be released from the suit upon payment of $140,000 (Johnson v. Misericordia Community Hospital). Although, Salinsky settled with plaintiff prior to trial, there was still “question of whether he was negligent in the manner in which he performed the operation on July 11, 1975, remained an issue at trial, as it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to prove that Salinsky was negligent in this respect to establish a
Moreover, "Many of these parties are seeking to enforce fundamental rights given them by Congress such as workplace, labor or civil rights which they often test in court proceedings." (New Talk; Would "looser pays" eliminate frivolous lawsuits and defenses?"; 2008) Additionally, the American Rule leaves the lawyer's fees to be freely bargained between the lawyer and his client. Whereas if a client feels that she stands, for whatever reason, a better chance of winning her suit by contracting the services of a high price lawyer of her choice she then has the freedom to do that. As John Fabian Witt, Professor of Law at Yale Law School explains "As soon as you adopt the English rule of loser-pays, then courts will have to monitor and rule on the reasonableness of those fees." Under the English rule the defendant may spend a large sum of money in court in a victory only to have their legal fees deemed "unreasonable" by the court leaving them to pay the bill. You might win the lawsuit but you still loose. Finally, from a business perspective; under the English Rule the idea of becoming a lawyer and opening a practice seems a lot less lucrative and somewhat riskier than opening a practice under the American Rule legal fee payment
What many American do not realize is that the concept of peremptory challenges has been around since the Roman era, but controversy over the topic in America did not come about until the twentieth century (Henley 1). Under Roman law, each litigant was allowed to select 100 jurors and then strike as many as 50 people from the jury pool (1). English Common law allowed the defendant 35 peremptory challenges, while the prosecution had an unlimited amount (1). This system was alive in England until 1305 when Parliament outlawed the prosecution’s right to peremptory challenges (1). It took over 600 years for Parliament to do the same with the rights to challenges for defendants in 1988 (1). The American legal system, being based on British common law, has always allowed for the use of peremptory challenges. One reasoning behind this fact is the American tradition of challenges (6). To be exact, the reason we continue to use peremptory challenges ...
Fee-For-Service or Traditional Indemnity plans are uncommon but still used. Payment is rendered for services provided. Traditional Indemnity plans in general have no provider network and a patient can see a specialist without a referral. If a patient uses an FFS plan, the patient would pay the provider for medical care provided. If the medical care provided is covered by the plan. The insurance company would then reimburse the patient according to the guidelines stated in the policy or the UCR’s “Usual, Customary, and Reasonable Fees.” (“Private-Fee-For-Service Plans,” CMS.gov, 3/16/2012). Key benefits of a Traditional Indemnity or Fee-for-Service plan include no in network physicians or health care providers and the patient may see any physician or seek health care services at any healthcare facility. The patient or client can also seek treatment from a specialist without a physician referral. Fee-for-Service plans are the most flexible plans for choosing a healthcare provider and health care facility. However, Traditional
Oh, J. (2011). Anti-Kickback Cases Involving Hospitals in 2010 and 2011. Becker’s ASC Review. Retrieved from http://www.beckersasc.com/stark-act-and-fraud-abuse-issues/10 big-anti- kickback-cases-involving-hospitals-in-2010.html
Medical error occurs more than most people realize and when a doctor is found negligent the patient has the right to sue for compensation of their losses. Debates and issues arise when malpractice lawsuits are claimed. If a patient is filing for a medical malpractice case, the l...
Tort reformers believe that courts must reduce the ability of defendants’ liability in order to avoid economic decline. In the years to come, the proposals likely to generate the biggest dispute include malpractice and class-action reform, limits on noneconomic and punitive damages, and a legislative solution to asbestos legation (Rushmann, 2006). There are many lawsuits. But the frivolous lawsuits should not be taken seriously and not cost our courts and citizens time and/or money.
The statute of limitation refers to the length of time in which a plaintiff can file a claim. The principle behind statute of limitation is that lawsuits cannot be improved as time passes by. For one, clear details of the facts can be blurred as memories can fade and witnesses may die, go away, or lose interest of the case. Ideally, court prefers to settle the case as soon as disputes develop (Warner, 2010). However, for professional and product liabilities, with injuries may take time to manifest, many courts adapted different rules such as postponing the running of the statute until the injury has been reasonably discovered. The length of time differs among states and branches of law (Danzon, 1985). The long and deferred statutes of limitations lead to long tail of claims and contributed majority of medical malpractice and product liability (Danzon, 1985). In this section, statutes of limitations for medical malpractice in two states are compared.
A negotiation, a contract, and many more ways used to describe the Criminal Justice System’s notion of plea bargaining. Plea bargaining has been around for a long time, but it is not until recent times that the use of a plea bargain has become a common practice. Defendants are given the chance to plead guilty for a lesser sentence and thus waive their right to trial. However, certain concerns relating to the actual guilt of defendants and the professionalism of the attorneys assigned to a case arise from an ethical stand point. Solutions offered to improve the practice of plea bargaining are often in two extremes. In one extreme, some argue for abolishment. In the other extreme, some state that plea bargaining simply needs to be reformed.
Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.
Smith, C. E. (2004). Public defenders. In T. Hall, U.S. Legal System (pp. 567-572-). [Ebscohost]. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook
Rising health care costs have caused a national crisis, and all agree we must embrace reform. President Obama has initiated his national health care plan in the hopes of decreasing some of the inflated costs. When attempting to resolve this issue, one must always address the root of the problem. A large portion of these inflationary costs stem from malpractice lawsuits, and so begins the debate for tort reform: legislation which would cut the costs of health care by reducing the risk of civil litigation and exposure to fraudulent claims (“What”). However, the real factor at hand and the real cause of the industry’s high costs does not come solely from the cost incurred from these lawsuits, but from over-expenditures on the part of doctors, who over-test and over-analyze so as to safeguard themselves from the threat of malpractice lawsuits. Thus, large public support exists for tort reform. While the proposed legislation enacted through tort reform could cut the costs of health care and positively transform the industry, it is ultimately unconstitutional and could not withstand judicial scrutiny.
Despite the longstanding acceptance and promotion for the crime-fraud exception, it appears that the use of the exception to report fraud has been relatively scant and use of ethical rules to sanction lawyers is similarly rare. For those that may favor private regulation or the ability of the market to dictate its own terms it seems that the equilibrium reached was one without lawyers disclosing of their own accord. This could be just viewed as an information failure problem—even if the ability to report fraud up the ladder was technically already available, lack of knowledge may have prevented lawyers from reporting fraud when they otherwise would have done so.
If you are like most consumers, you have noticed the huge amount of fees banks are charging lately. We as consumers are overloaded with fees. We are charged for ATM withdrawals, overdraft fees, and statement fees. Sometimes of these fees are our fault; we might enjoy convenience, but we may not give enough considerations to the cost. You might be fed up with these fees, and looking for ways to stop paying those fees. You can achieve this for with minor modification.