My Thoughts on HBO's 'Hot Coffee' Documentary about Tort Reform
I watched the HBO documentary Hot Coffee on Monday night. Here are a few random thoughts. 
- The Mississippians in the documentary were superb. Former Miss. Supreme Court Justice Oliver Diaz, Jackson attorney Rob McDuff, former Miss. Supreme Court Justice Chuck McRae and author John Grisham all spoke eloquently and convincingly.
- I had forgotten how bogus the government's case against Diaz appeared. For me, the fact that the government prosecuted Diaz soiled the prosecutions of Minor, Teel and Whitfield. I don't have a problem with those prosecutions. But the decision to prosecute Diaz was a mistake and, in retrospect, looks politically motivated.
- I felt stupid to have never connected the fact that taxpayers pay for the cost of tort reform. When tort victims fully recover in the Court system, Medicaid and Medicare are reimbursed and are not saddled with the plaintiff's future medical care. Under the cap system, people wind up back on the Medicaid rolls and these entities receive less reimbursement.
- It also reminded me that the system that Mississippi nursing homes use to shield their operators from liability also shifts the burden or paying for their negligence to taxpayers who are funding Medicare and Medicaid.
- I had never seem the pictures of the burns to the legs of the victim in the McDonald's coffee case or heard the actual facts of the case. The fact that people in this country were misled by her lawsuit is sad.
- The documentary solidified what I had already figured out: the general public does not understand tort reform. They believe that caps apply to frivolous lawsuits. In fact, the opposite is true. Caps only come into play in non-frivolous cases with extensive injuries. Big business has effectively and intentionally misled the public on this issue.
The film made me sad. Sad for the victims portrayed in the film, who were under compensated due to caps or kept from the courthouse due to mandatory arbitration clauses. Sad for the American public, who were duped into supporting tort reform by those they trust.
The film also made me sad for my profession. The legal profession has had its image tarnished by greedy ambulance chasers who advertise that they can get large sums of money for accident victims who were not really hurt. They may not come out and say that in their ads, but that is what they are selling.
Have you ever noticed that in lawyer commercials with people who got a big check, the people don't look hurt? How it's never the family of the dead guy? Or the woman who lost her leg? Or the child who suffered brain damage and will never be able to take care of herself? Think these commercials could be a factor in public support of tort reform?
On your bullet #3--I had that exact same reaction when that came out. To put it like a 16 year old kid on twitter, I had an OMG-WTH moment. So not only do the defendants get off the hook (at least most of it), but that hook is passed on to the taxpayers and public at large?
Didn't know they were going to cover nursing homes -- would've liked to've seen that. Not that I have HBO.
Just so I am clear, are we assuming that everyone who files a lawsuit is: (1) actually injured and (2) entitled to recover from the entity that their lawyer decides to sue?
Phillip,
I agree with the points you made about the documentary and they go well with my recent personal comments to you. As I stated during our conversation, justice is blind but people are not. That is just the way it is.
Keep up the good work!
It was a great movie! Made me really upset. Al Franken's speech in the court trial was powerful! Funny, most Republicans are in favor of tort reform laws... except Ron Paul. Maybe he's not so nutty after all!