President insults juror’s ability, intelligence in rendering verdicts
While speaking in Scranton recently, President Bush talked about those who may suffer the consequences of “a lousy jury and a lousy verdict.” In his speech, Mr. Bush blamed lawsuits and “lousy juries” for high malpractice costs. I feel that he owes the citizens of this state an apology. Just who does Mr. Bush think jurors are anyway? Jurors are voters. Jurors are taxpayers. Jurors are the citizens who make up the government of the people, for the people and by the people.
One must ask why Mr. Bush would insult jurors who have heard the evidence and made decisions that he doesn’t like. He seems to believe that jurors who award damages to injured patients are bad. Presumably, jurors who decide in favor of doctors and hospitals must be the “good” juries in his book. Mr. Bush should be reminded that our jury system is the best this world has ever created.
But this president apparently wants us to ignore the facts and evidence. It’s easier, that way, to side with the wealthy special interests who support Mr. Bush. The president should know that, nevertheless:
– Between 1997 and 2001 in Pennsylvania, malpractice payments for settlements and jury awards have risen about 8 percent each year. This is less than the increases in medical inflation for the same period, and significantly lower than the growth in doctors premiums.
– There were only 22 jury awards in 2002 for $1 million or more, down by 50 percent in two years.
– Almost 100,000 patients die each year from preventable medical errors in this country. With a population of 12 million or so in Pennsylvania, our state would be responsible for roughly 3,000 of these deaths. Surely there are 22 legitimate cases here, if not many more.
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution provides that the right to “trial by jury” is preserved. The founding fathers of this country believed that jurors were good enough to decide the fate of a criminals (i.e. place them in jail.) Why then are these same jurors not good enough to fairly hold doctors and hospitals accountable for negligently injuring patients?
In an uncivilized society, the theory of “an eye for an eye” prevails so that if a person, including a doctor, negligently injures or kills another, the injured person would have the right to exact the same injury on the wrongdoer. Fortunately, we live in a “civil” society where persons who cause harm are held accountable by a jury for damages, not by a lynch mob. Would Mr. Bush prefer if injured patient’s took matters into their own hands? I think not.
In his speech in Scranton, Mr. Bush offered no solutions, but only insults to jurors, injured patients and their families. For this reason, he owes Pennsylvania jurors an apology. He also owes an apology to the injured patients and their families whose lawsuits were heard and decided by juries of their peers.
Stephen P. Moschetta is a Washington, Pa., lawyer.