Regarding the fact that no-one is worth $100 million.
In 1992, Boeing undertook an investigation after another 737 crashed killing 25, when it found out that the screw jack on the rudder 'ran away'. They worked out that to retro fit all of the 737's out there would cost "X" but paying the projected number of deceased (estates) due to this sort of incident happening again would be "Y". As "X" was way higher than "Y" it was decided to keep the results of their findings to themselves and they asked the FAA to comply. The FAA complied!
The findings determined that the cost of all the payouts that 'might' happen in future amounted to "Y" and that this figure divided by the number of passengers affected was $800 each. $800 is what Boeing and the FAA decided a life was worth to hide the truth.

Even affording a million pounds a year to look after someone until they die - $100 million is way too much.
Lawyers run this world, not common sense.:mad:

While the American legal system is a law (no pun intended) to itself, there is some merit to big payouts.
Corporates can avoid doing more than they consider necessary because it is more cost effective no to.
When they will face severe penalties - financial or criminal - this tends to get managements notice and motivate a more proactive culture.
You can't reduce pain, suffering and loss to a number - though lawyers do.
If you're prepared to reduce it to an arbitrary amount the same logic can be applied to make the eyes water instead.

Nothing is a better motivator than punishing the bottom line.

I don't recall mentioning/suggesting anything about patients so allow me clarify: reports have shown that 25% of all procedures and stays prescribed for all US patients are performed for legal reasons and not medical reasons.

Don't have to exaggerate. My figures are actually 5 years old. Current annual costs on defensive medical decisions are reported past the $800 Billion mark based on a $3.3 Trillion health care spending.

And these reports/figures are also easily available from public sources for those who choose to look.

It is what it is.

I read them. I agree with them. There is a growing opinion that 25% unneeded might be on the low end of the scale. My wife recently suffered from sciatia, which I diagnosed at home with a few simple questions, checked the temp and lividity of both legs. We went to the family doctor, and he called for a CAT scan, blood workup(done in the past 6 mo), and possibly some invasive spine procedure. I told him to calm the **** down, and lets just do the sciatica protocol first. She got an anti-inflammatory, 6 weeks of PT, and no lifting(she's a senior care asst, and has to help lift patients all the time). Sciatica pretty much gone, she's back to no pain and we're careful now about straining back and twisting. If we had gone through all the checks the MD advised, it would have been 4X what we finally took care of. We're not alone. If the insurer is paying, they'll call for everything in the book, and it's a fat book at that.

This discussion is threatening to derail the thread, but

Wrench 1: a 'stay' is laymen's slang for what doctors call 'an admission' so that is exactly what you are suggesting.

ethicalconundrum: back pain is a medical nightmare, with perhaps the largest cost expansion and scant evidence that simple procedures are less effective than the very costly ones. Cant agree more. Also agree there is defensive medicine, unnecessary tests and wasted money. But 25% of any parameter across a hospital or system is simply exaggeration. The sort of thing the Daily Moil reader might beleive

I don't know what the age of the burn victim was. If he was a healthy man in his late 20s, and survived the massive external burns, he's likely going to live for 50-ish more years. He's also going to have huge ongoing medical expenses during that lifetime. Given the state of the art medical coverage, and some matter of defensive medicine, his lifetime costs could be in the multiple tens of millions. Not that the entire pot of the settlement is his and his alone.

Further, the punitive damages in the US when the plaintiff goes court shopping could be huge. And it would seem, with little research on my part that punitive award was going to be both justified and ergo, massive. Maybe that settlement was considered reasonable in the light of day, and the facts at hand.

One thing I will join in condemning is the cost to the aviation community due to other unjust liability settlements. Guy in NJ flies a Bonanza CFIT in a thunderstorm and his family is awarded $7 mil? WTF? guy in AZ rips the wing off a Piper Seneca during OEN training and the family gets $22 mil? Awards like this where pilot error is the proximate cause, and the fact that the Bonanza wasn't equipped with a strikefinder upgrade are just indefensible. The stupidity of the jury in the face of tragic consequence is our own failing, and I have no apology for it.

Thread drift for sure. But if you believe that reports from the JAMA, NEJM, ABIM, and RAND group are on par with the Daily Mail... well you are entitled to your opinion.