Debate re: Oklahoma's tort reform law requiring expert certificate

SanDiegoInjury: A good tort reform law? I think so. http://bit.ly/MBTov

• Chris_Davis: @SanDiegoInjury I would only support OK's tort deform law if it also required an affidavit to support a defense or denial of negligence.

• Sobk13: @SanDiegoInjury Hello, it does sound like a good idea, but won't people just shop around for the 'Yes Man's' opinion?

• walterolson: RT @SanDiegoInjury: A good tort reform law? I think so. (Oklahoma expert certificate of merit law) http://bit.ly/MBTov

• SanDiegoInjury: @Chris_Davis Good twist, Chris. Reason I support the bill is that is only requires what a good injury lawyer should be doing anyway.

• SanDiegoInjury: @Sobk13 Perhaps. But the practical reality is that close calls do not make good medical malpractice cases.

• SanDiegoInjury: @walterolson @Chris_Davis says the OK law would be better if it also required a dec from the Dr that he wasn't negligent. I agree.

• walterolson: @SanDiegoInjury Interesting idea, hadn't thought of that. If you ever see it written up at length, let me know.

• Chris_Davis: @SanDiegoInjury True, but I see many more frivolous defenses and denials than I see frivolous lawsuits. Just my experience.

• SanDiegoInjury: @Chris_Davis I agree. This law just codifies what we should be doing anyway. But I like the reciprocity of your idea.

Comments

[gyi tsakalakis]

There is no question for the need of mechanisms to limit frivolous lawsuits. On the other hand, it is important that AOM and AOMD legislation is properly written. Ask any Michigan med-mal lawyer about the ridiculous outcomes that have resulted from poorly administered AOM and AOMD requirements. And I am not referring solely to plaintiffs' attorneys.

Only recently has the Michigan Supreme Court untangled some of the mess. I hope Oklahoma looks to Michigan as an example of what not to do.