Dear Bill Simon,

You have an incredibly uninformed and misinformed point-of view regarding this issue considering the normally enlightened views espoused in The Political Vine.

I'm not sure how many doctors you know well, but I know hundreds of them around the state (and no, I'm not one of them). Your comment that "a lot of physicians earn $250,000 in the first 4 months of the year..." is woefully incorrect and misleading. Few physicians make that much in four months. Their practice might take in that much, but after paying for rent, equipment, staff and their benefits, repayment of student loans in the case of younger physicians, and the ever-increasing malpractice premium, you'd be shocked how little can remain. It amazes me how many people, apparently yourself included, who believe that most physicians are multi-millionaires.

Are there some? Sure. Are they the exception rather than the rule?
Absolutely! How many INDIVIDUALS pay out tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year just for the privilege of practicing their profession BEFORE they can practice? How many pay out 10-20% of their incomes just to do what they love to do? Not many, except physicians.

Limiting punitive damages may not be the whole solution, but let's remember that punitive damages are only one facet of an award. ACTUAL, COMPENSATORY damages can be huge, and are not affected by these proposals.

Also, you have to consider the cost of litigation, which is truly amazing. I recently reviewed a malpractice case in Texas involving a case where there truly is NO malpractice or negligence involved by the hospital or physicians involved. However, the litigation costs of this matter will eat up at least $250,000, not an inconsiderable amount.

If you like, let's ignore the monetary side altogether and discuss your views regarding juries. I'm not sure if you're uninformed here or incredibly naive. I recently served my 8th time on jury duty in the 20-odd years I've been in Georgia. It was yet another wasted day sitting in the Jury Room in the Fulton County Courthouse. After waiting all day, with about 20 of us remaining in the Jury Room we were called for a trial.

Before we even entered the courtroom, the matter miraculously settled after who knows how many months or even years of litigation. And legally, there is no "getting out of jury duty" any more in Georgia. If you are called, you are required to go, and as was recently reported in the local news, the judge can send the deputies to pick you up if you decide not to go.

Attorneys, particularly trial lawyers in private practice, have no interest whatsoever in a "jury of peers." They want to find the 6 or 12 people they think they are most likely to manipulate to their point of view. Why do you think so many of them employ "jury consultants"? It's certainly not to pick a "fair and impartial jury". Anyone can register to vote, intelligent or not. Looking around the jury room a couple of weeks ago, I know I would be scared to death to think that some of the people in that room might hold my
life in their hands.

Try and get some more facts and become more informed before you comment again on tort reform. The current efforts may not be the only answer, but any step in the right direction is worth taking.

Sincerely yours,

JOHN W. KIMBELL, MMSc

Bill Simon's Response: I regret making the statement regarding about how much physicians earn in any amount of time. I did start out on that article with the intention of not bringing emotional opinion into it and slipped-up.

However, to Mr. Kimbrell's claim about me not being "informed" about the jury pool, he apparently got confused in the reading of my argument. Because his argument matches my argument exactly. The jury pool contains a lot of people who, though they are registered to vote, they do not vote, and therefore, in my mind, are not interested enough in the process of government to be eligible to participate.

There is an old movie called "Twelve Angry Men" that was produced back in the 1950s or 1960s. The entire movie takes place inside of a jury room where 12 jurors discuss the merits of a murder trial. A vote is taken at the beginning of the deliberation period and all but one juror votes that the defendant is guilty. The movie wends you through a dramatic process whereby that lone juror holds onto his reasoning and interpretation of events. And, man-by-man, he turns the other 11 jurors over to his point of view of the facts presented in the trial.

Mr. Kimbrell's point about a lawyer finding 6 or 12 people that he can manipulate is valid. But, my point is that if you reduce the available pool size, you will produce a smaller pool of more committed citizens, and all it will then take is one lone juror to make a stand of logic and fairness to the other jurors. Or, the result is a hung jury based on one protest vote. That is the American way of a jury system.

And, it would work a lot better if the Legislature saw it's way clear to addressing the real problem in these outlandish awards: jurors who are not qualified to be "impartial" to the cases brought to trial.

- Bill Simon