Edwards in action

[dude1394]

Despite the overwrought claims of Edwards' dazzling legal skills, winning jury verdicts in personal injury cases has nothing to do with legal talent and everything to do with getting the right cases -- unless "talent" is taken to mean "having absolutely no shame." Edwards specialized in babies with cerebral palsy whom he claimed would have been spared the affliction if only the doctors had immediately performed Caesarean sections.

As a result of such lawsuits, there are now more than four times as many Caesarean sections as there were in 1970. But curiously, there has been no change in the rate of babies born with cerebral palsy. As The New York Times reported: "Studies indicate that in most cases, the disorder is caused by fetal brain injury long before labor begins." All those Caesareans have, however, increased the mother's risk of death, hemorrhage, infection, pulmonary embolism and Mendelson's syndrome.

In addition, the "little guys" Edwards claims to represent are having a lot more trouble finding doctors to deliver their babies these days as obstetricians leave the practice rather than pay malpractice insurance in excess of $100,000 a year.

In one of Edwards' silver-tongued arguments to the jury on behalf of a girl born with cerebral palsy, he claimed he was channeling the unborn baby girl, Jennifer Campbell, who was speaking to the jurors through him:

"She said at 3, 'I'm fine.' She said at 4, 'I'm having a little trouble, but I'm doing OK.' Five, she said, 'I'm having problems.' At 5:30, she said, 'I need out.'"

She's saying, "My lawyer needs a new Jaguar ... "

"She speaks to you through me and I have to tell you right now -- I didn't plan to talk about this -- right now I feel her. I feel her presence. She's inside me, and she's talking to you."

Well, tell her to pipe down, would you? I'm trying to hear the evidence in a malpractice lawsuit.

To paraphrase Oscar Wilde on the death of Little Nell, one must have a heart of stone to read this without laughing. What is this guy, a tent-show preacher? An off-the-strip Las Vegas lounge psychic couldn't get away with this routine.

Is Edwards able to channel any children right before an abortionist's fork is plunged into their tiny skulls? Why can't he hear those babies saying, "Let me live! Stop spraying this saline solution all over me!" Edwards must experience interference in channeling the voices of babies about to be aborted. Their liberal mothers' hands seem to muffle those voices.

[Drbio]

wow.

[kg_veteran]

Wow, indeed.

He's the kind of guy that gives my profession the bad name it has.

[mavsman55]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
Wow, indeed.

He's the kind of guy that gives my profession the bad name it has.

He gives abortion doctors a bad name? lol jk

[Drbio]

sheesh mavsman.....lol

[kg_veteran]

Even worse -- trial lawyer. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

[Mavdog]

There's clearly two sides to the reputation of John Edwards...do trial lawyers deserve the negative reactions that seem to follow them when large awards are given, or are they truly serving the small person as their way of providing the balance to the corporate indifference that on occasion exists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The defining case in Edwards' legal career wrapped up that same year. In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards' closing argument, "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen," recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history. For their part, Edwards and Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.

[madape]

Edwards - the tough, smart lawyer.

[dude1394]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
There's clearly two sides to the reputation of John Edwards...do trial lawyers deserve the negative reactions that seem to follow them when large awards are given, or are they truly serving the small person as their way of providing the balance to the corporate indifference that on occasion exists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The defining case in Edwards' legal career wrapped up that same year. In 1993, a five-year-old girl named Valerie Lakey had been playing in a Wake County, N.C., wading pool when she became caught in an uncovered drain so forcefully that the suction pulled out most of her intestines. She survived but for the rest of her life will need to be hooked up to feeding tubes for 12 hours each night. Edwards filed suit on the Lakeys' behalf against Sta-Rite Industries, the Wisconsin corporation that manufactured the drain. Attorneys describe his handling of the case as a virtuoso example of a trial layer bringing a negligent corporation to heel. Sta-Rite offered the Lakeys $100,000 to settle the case. Edwards passed. Before trial, he discovered that 12 other children had suffered similar injuries from Sta-Rite drains. The company raised its offer to $1.25 million. Two weeks into the trial, they upped the figure to $8.5 million. Edwards declined the offer and asked for their insurance policy limit of $22.5 million. The day before the trial resumed from Christmas break, Sta-Rite countered with $17.5 million. Again, Edwards said no. On January 10, 1997, lawyers from across the state packed the courtroom to hear Edwards' closing argument, "the most impressive legal performance I have ever seen," recalls Dayton. Three days later, the jury found Sta-Rite guilty and liable for $25 million in economic damages (by state law, punitive damages could have tripled that amount). The company immediately settled for $25 million, the largest verdict in state history. For their part, Edwards and Kirby earned the Association of Trial Lawyers of America's national award for public service.

And edwards raked in a cool 8 Million bucks. So edwards made 8 million bucks on the misfortune of children in a tragic pool accident.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394

And edwards raked in a cool 8 Million bucks. So edwards made 8 million bucks on the misfortune of children in a tragic pool accident.

clearly dude is of the former group who see trial lawyers benefitting on other's misfortune.

in an alternative view, the unfortunate victim of a defective product was provided an amount of $16.5 Million to pay for her continual medical needs, and the manufacturer was brought to justice for their mistake.

[kg_veteran]

I have no problem with the individual example you cited. In that case, it appears that Edwards did a service for his client. However, the beef with Edwards is his use of "junk science" to extort numerous doctors into settling cases where they realistically had no liability for the cerebral palsy suffered by the patient.

[madape]

A tort system should deter and insure. But our tort system does neither well, especially when it comes to product liability and medical malpractice cases. Winning claims often have little connection with true negligence so the system does not deter and instead of insurance the tort system offers those with injuries a lottery ticket, handing large payouts to some and nothing to others with equal difficulties. To top it off, the system is expensive as more dollars are spent on litigation than flow to plaintiffs.

[kg_veteran]

Being part of our system (on the defense side), I think by and large our system works reasonably well. The problem is that we have those that misuse and abuse the system, causing those that are legitimately injured by the wrongdoing of another to suffer.

Products liability cases CAN be grossly abused, especially when it comes to prescription medications. Class action lawsuits can drive manufacturers to settle even when there is very questionable or speculative evidence regarding the causation of harm to any end user of the medication (one notable example is Bendectine). Moreover, in class action litigation, the attorneys are the only ones that really profit. At least in individual cases the individual's actual damages and injuries are addressed and assessed by the jury.

As for medical malpractice lawsuits, there is no question that doctors make mistakes. And when they legitimately breach the standard of care and cause injury, they should be held responsible. On the other hand, when plaintiffs' attorneys can get mercenary "experts" to testify and invent liability where none really exists, we have problems. Most of the time the doctors will settle for fear of getting in front of a jury with a severely injured plaintiff, knowing that the plaintiff's lawyer might be able to convince the jury to look past the questionable causation of injury simply based upon the devastating nature of the injury. That means that doctors who really did nothing wrong are extorted into paying settlement money to make the plaintiffs go away. This DOES drive up malpractice insurance costs, which hurts for a couple of reasons. First, it drives doctors out of the profession, because they just can't afford the malpractice premiums. Second, it drives the cost of healthcare up dramatically. If the doctors do have to pay the increased malpractice premiums, they pass the cost on to you -- the end user of their services. In other words, we all pay when these extorted settlements take place.