The Washington Examiner, Sept 14, 2007

WASHINGTON - For plaintiffs lawyer and Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, 1985 was the year he stood before a jury and channeled the silent pleas of a baby girl born breeched and brain-damaged, thanks to a doctor’s alleged negligence.

“I feel her presence, she’s inside me ... talking to you,” Edwards told the jury of his tiny client, according to The New York Times. The jury came back with a $6.5 million verdict for Edwards’ client, inspiring him to file “at least 20 more similar lawsuits against doctors and hospitals in deliveries gone wrong, winning verdicts and settlements of more than $60 million, typically keeping about a third,” the Times reported.

Edwards’ lucrative performance was but one case from among many in multiple areas of litigation in which plaintiffs lawyers in recent years have found riches by filing lawsuits for individuals or groups claiming personal injury, property damage, or financial loss allegedly caused by some person, agency or company.

Since it’s often impossible for defendants to counter such suits effectively, many quickly settle before trial to “make it go away,” in effect converting the court system into an ATM for out-of-control plaintiffs lawyers.

Opportunities, real and manufactured, for multimillion-dollar suits abound: Asbestos, mold, securities and investments, pharmaceuticals, guns, medical procedures, pensions, tobacco, fast-food insurance, products liability, the environment.

It is a system that produces such outrages as an Illinois attorney who received $16.8 million in a pharmaceutical case settlement, while his clients got only $15 as long as they had their original receipt for the drug at the heart of the suit. Without the receipt, they got nothing.

Overall, the Pacific Research Institute, a conservative think tank, estimates the costs of liability lawsuit abuse exceeded $865 billion last year or nearly $10,000 for every family in America. Litigation costs just for small businesses average more than $150,000 annually, according to the White House.

The medical profession provides numerous illustrations of the costs of out-of-control plaintiffs lawyers. A 2005 University of Michigan Health System study found escalating malpractice premiums led “providers to drop or reduce obstetrical services,” leaving pregnant women hard-pressed to find prenatal care in places as diverse as Florida, Chicago, Nevada, Michigan, New York and the District of Columbia.

In Albany, N.Y., malpractice insurance for OB-GYNs climbed 22 percent in 2004, the local Business Review reported. In Virginia, meanwhile, doctors were shocked when the $23,000 rate of 2002 jumped to $84,000 in 2004, according to a CBS News report.

“The rising cost of liability insurance and the state laws that govern medical malpractice are jeopardizing patient access to care in many states, especially in rural areas,” said a Jan. 2006, Heritage Foundation Backgrounder report, Code Blue: The Case for Serious State Medical Liability Reform.

Often, it’s the specialty fields of health care that are hit hardest.

“One in seven OB-GYNs in the United States has stopped practicing obstetrics because of the medical liability crisis,” according to a recent Doctors for Medical Liability Reform report, aptly titled “The Medical Liability Crisis and the Case of the Disappearing Doctor.”

But the medical field is only one arena in which class action lawsuit abuse is rampant. Aggressive plaintiffs lawyers stand ready to sue wherever deep pockets — corporate or otherwise — can be found.

Things are so out of hand that the legal system has even litigated a $54 million damage claim filed by a District of Columbia administrative law judge against a local dry cleaner that lost his pants.

“In my tenure,” said Sherman Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association, “that is the most outrageous case in every respect I’ve ever seen.”

Joyce refers, of course, to the brouhaha involving Judge Roy Pearson, who sued the owners of Custom Cleaners when he claimed they didn’t honor their “Satisfaction Guaranteed” sign by replacing the lost pants. Pearson continued his suit despite the fact the owners offered him thousands of dollars to replace the pants.

And so Americans watch in amazement as the ridiculous lawsuits pile up: A woman sues Starburst Fruit Chews because the fruit chews are, oddly enough, chewy. A couple sues American Airlines because their legs were cramped on the flight to Paris. A Fear Factor viewer sues NBC because he vomited watching contestants eat rats. A Wisconsin student sues the school over stress caused by summer homework.

Where does it end?

Mark Tapscott is the editorial page editor of The Washington Examiner. Cheryl K. Chumley is an independent journalist and researcher.