Why does the Huffington Post allow Joanne Doroshow to keep posting misinformation?
Attorney Doroshow’s latest blog post on HuffPo alleges that medical malpractice caps are an “attack on women” and therefore any Republican who votes for medical malpractice caps is risks alienating himself (or herself) from half of all the voters in the United States.
Half of Attorney Doroshow’s post cites opinions from others that the Republican party is engaging in “mass misogyny.”
When she finally tries to justify her kindergarten logic, Attorney Doroshow quotes University of Buffalo law professor Lucinda Finley, stating that
“[C]ertain injuries that happen primarily to women are compensated predominantly or almost exclusively through non-economic loss damages. These injuries include sexual or reproductive harm, pregnancy loss, and sexual assault injuries.”
Let’s look at the legal arguments that Attorney Doroshow has adopted.
Sexual or reproductive harm happens primarily to women.
Is Attorney Doroshow attempting to argue that there are so many fewer lawsuits relating to testicular/prostate cancer, male urologic injuries, testicular torsion, and hernia-related injuries such that malpractice caps would be de facto misogynistic? I notice a deafening lack of statistics to support her assertions. Professor Finley’s article didn’t address the issue, either, but Professor Finley’s article wasn’t limited to medical malpractice caps — it discussed general caps on noneconomic damages.
Pregnancy loss happens primarily to women.
True. Women are the ones who get pregnant. But is Attorney Doroshow attempting to argue that only one parent is allowed to file a lawsuit on behalf of the child when there is a pregnancy-related loss? As an attorney, what is her legal basis for such a claim? How are malpractice caps on a “pregnancy loss” lawsuit discriminatory toward women?
Sexual assault injuries happen primarily to women and are compensated predominantly or almost exclusively through non-economic loss damages.
I agree that sexual assault injuries primarily happen to women. However, sexual assault injuries have little to do with medical malpractice caps. Sexual assault is a criminal issue. Often, victims of crimes receive compensation from a Crime Victims Compensation Fund. Caps on medical malpractice have nothing to do with sexual assault injuries – unless the physician is the one assaulting the patient. And even if a physician did sexually assault a patient, the litigation wouldn’t be a “medical malpractice” issue subject to malpractice caps, it would be a civil tort issue where malpractice caps do not apply.
As further justification for how noneconomic medical malpractice damage caps are discriminatory toward women, Ms. Doroshow again cites Professor Finley, stating
“[J]uries consistently award women more in noneconomic loss damages than men … [A]ny cap on noneconomic loss damages will deprive women of a much greater proportion and amount of a jury award than men.”
There is no comment from Attorney Doroshow on why it is acceptable for juries to discriminate against men in awarding noneconomic damages. However, if legislatures take some action that would potentially neutralize the “discrimination,” Attorney Dorshow alleges the action would constitutes a sleight so severe to the female gender as to amount to instant political suicide. That is simple pig pen effluent.
I agree that $250,000 caps on noneconomic damages are not fair to patients. I also think that we need to find some middle ground where patients can be fairly compensated for their injuries but where medical providers are not subject to bankruptcy from “super losses“.
Joanne Doroshow’s attempts to scare people into opposing H.R. 5 through a campaign of misinformation is wholly inappropriate. Based on her writings, I can only come to one conclusion:
Attorney Joanne Doroshow’s writings demonstrate misandry more than medical malpractice caps demonstrate misogyny.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.