We have a system called trial by jury, with appeals if one party doesn't like the verdict. Or it could be tried in front of a judge. Or the judge can tell the jury how to vote with a directed verdict.

The insurance companies pushed tort reform, telling the doctors their malpractice premiums would go down.

The doctors' rates were based strictly on their specialty, NOT on whether they had been sued numerous times or not.

The real problem is that the state medical boards do NOT discipline bad doctors, or yank their licenses. The malpractice is caused by a few bad doctors, who don't care, or have a drug problem, or whatever.

I know of one OB/gyn who got to the hospital too late ...the baby had permanent brain damage, and would never progress past the mental age of a six-month old.

Did the state yank his license? Hell no. He moved to another state and started practicing again.

That is not right.

I've seen lots of trials and the bad cases get dismissed before trial. It's called a motion for summary judgment. That's the proper remedy for a dog case. If it goes to trial, and the defendants did not cause the plaintiff's injuries, the plaintiff gets nothing as the proper remedy. We have mechanisms in place to make sure the case is tried fairly. We don't need tort reform.

Tort reform is a sham. The insurance companies are still screwing the doctors out of their premiums. And often times, a truly disabled plaintiff is not granted a judgment against the doctor and hospital who injured him. Then the taxpayers get to support the disabled person. The doctor and his insurance company should have been held responsible, and the doctor should have had his license revoked.

That never happens, from what I have seen.

I spent years working at the courthouse, and know whereof I speak.

I am a non-practicing lawyer as well.