I am against caps on rewards to victims of careless, lazy doctors; though in favor of caps on rewards to victims who failed to folllow their doctors' orders.

In my case, the doctor who was supposed to be monitoring my medications after valve replacement surgery, was to busy over a weekend shortly after the surgery to be bothered. He was involved in a golf tournament designed to raise money for a political party and could not take the time to read a short report which would have alerted him to the fact my blood was too thick and that situation could result in a stroke. When he finally got around to reading the report, instead of hospitalizing me, where I could be constantly monitored, he had me take a large dose of blood thinner. 24 hour later I suffered a crippling stroke that left me unable to walk and with the use of only one hand.

I sued, and won, but because of the reward cap in my home state, it took a mere seven years to use up the money I received; the vast majority of it being used for medicines and necessaey medical equipment.

There is no amount of money that could compensate me for my medical loss, but I should not have to become a burden on my adult children because of the doctor's zeal to raise money for a politician!

First, I am very sorry for your terrible situation. It should not happen to anyone.

However, I am confused about how caps on punative damages would effect your money running out. I guess my question is shouldnt your award have included payment for a lifetime of medical care? In other words, limiting the punative portion of the settlement to X amount of dollars should have no effect on the portion of the money awarded for costs attributable to your condition.

If your money ran out after 7 years only, it sounds like there was a problem with your lawyers or the judge/jury in determing the monetary loss and expenses your injury would cause.

If I am misunderstanding, please clarify for me. And again, Im very sorry for your situation.

I think you are misunderstanding. The caps in effect in many states are not just for punitive damages, but for all noneconomic damages, including pain, suffering, loss of the enjoyment of life, etc. Punitive damages are essentially never part of a negligence action because an award of punitive damages must be based on the defendant's intentional, extreme, and outrageous conduct. The court would not even allow a jury to consider punitive damages, and would set aside any punitive damage award they grant.

Part of the problem is that the medical industry, including doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies, have been successful for many years in blocking health care reform. If we had true universal coverage a lifetime of medical expenses would not be the crushing burden it is now.

caps are for pain and suffering, not ongoing medical bills. If you ran out of money because of medical bills, you should sue your LAWYER for malpractice - and there are no caps for that.