A Support for Tort Reform: Not Really.

Anyone who knows me knows that I am a loyal reader of the New York Post, in fact, I have read almost every New York Post ever printed cover to cover for the past 20-odd years.Calculating this, means I have spent more than $5,000 on the paper since the time I was in college. It also means that I am probably in a better analytical position than many of the editors, including the editor in chief, Col Allen, who is Australian and picked by the owner, Rupert Murdoch, also an Australian.

That being said, I was always aware of the point of view of the editor, and by default the perspective of the writers he has hired. I have often quipped, and again for those who know me, this is nothing new: I read the post as the antidote to the New York Times, and I read the New York Times, as the antidote to the New York Post. Most items I read, I am dispassionate about, and attribute any point of view to rhetoric. But then I saw yesterday's NY Post article titled: "NY Suer system sucks." And I could not help but to leave that without comment.

Basically the article piggybacked the political perspective that in order to make "healthcare reform" work: in shorthand: "tort reform" would need to be part of the equation. But the article was unfortunate in that, first of all it cited five cases over the last seven years as "abuses of the legal system."

However, none of the case supposedly proving the point, involved medical malpractice.

Additionally all of the cases that were cited as signs of abuse were thrown out of court, and none of the plaintiffs recovered a cent. Yet, the Post figured their readers were ignorant enough that they would be outraged by the filings of the suits that they would further the agenda of the editors. Again, I love the Post, but for my own reasons, I am a skeptic.

Yes, each of the Plaintiffs filed a suit, all were thrown out...So what is the problem? Unless the perspective is that Plaintiffs who are truly injured should not be entitled to seek redress for the injuries suffered, who can complain?

Leaving aside the merits of the lawsuits, the New York Post attempted to take five suits over seven years, all of which were thrown out by judges in New York Courts, and from them, extrapolate that the judicial system was out of control.

A careful reader would come to the exact opposite conclusion: It is only pertinent suits that will go to trial. The rest will be weeded out by judges who take the judicial system seriously. If anything, conservative advocates...including the New York Post, should be welcoming the "frivolous" lawsuits they cite...not only will they never be able to reach the determination of a jury...but the filing fees expended by the Plaintiff, will be paid into the budget without a cent recouped. A double win: It can be used as rhetoric as a prosecutorial win, and the fees can be used to reduce the state deficit.