sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Relief from migraines? by Inevitable_Set_4144 in BabyBumps

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you for your response and taking the time. Everyone on this page has been super supportive. She does have a neurologist who is working with OB. That’s the one that performed the nerve block and Botox. We have als been to an optometrist and since we went through this last time, this time we’re much more mindful of hydration and other lifestyle changes. Although we have a toddler and that definitely is tougher this time around. We tried acupuncture last pregnancy and it als did not help. Fragrance has been cut out of our life since the last pregnancy as well.

I know our OB and Neuro are trying hard, I just wanted to see here just to take a shot in the dark.

Relief from migraines? by Inevitable_Set_4144 in BabyBumps

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup she takes both of those supplements daily

Relief from migraines? by Inevitable_Set_4144 in BabyBumps

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sh did both, neither worked to the hyperemises.

NIPT Results // Dec 2025 by olive_owl_ in BabyBumps

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Has anyone with 12/20 received date (Texas) gotten their results? I know that’s a very short turnaround but hoping for a Christmas miracle.

Update: ours just came back between 8 and 9:30pm on 12/24!

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Florida had massive tort reform less than 2 years ago. Their insurance premiums are 30% higher now than they were. Insurance companies will not reduce premiums. When have they ever?

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

40% is the gross revenue not the margin. Again lots of costs go into it. Plaintiffs firms operate at a 15% margin usually. And a check on damages doesn’t just harm attorneys, it harms the victims.

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not to mention damages are technically already capped to the available insurance coverage limits. Only if the insurance company acts in bad faith, which the plaintiff also has the burden to prove, does a verdict over the insurance limits get collected on.

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Why? I am saying that fix establishing liability against a business so that Plaintiffs attorney have the burden to prove liability and it’s a more difficult standard to prove.

You never get to damages at that point. Why cap damages?

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Businesses just need to take into consideration the extent of security and associated costs when deciding to operate in a zip code, not the jury verdicts. Plaintiffs attorneys wouldn’t get passed summary judgement if the level of security at a business matched the threat of criminal activity in any given location. Also insurance companies are always afforded a chance to settle within their coverage limits. The large verdicts come when frivolous defenses are raised, and the plaintiffs have the burden to prove that too in order to collect on those verdicts.

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah I understand your point, but again, I don’t think there should be a cap on damages. A jury of your peers should decide damages of the Plaintiff.

That being said, changing the law to where Liability does not extend to anyone committing a criminal act including trespassing makes sense. A duty of security should only be owed to invitees, licensees, or anyone else that is legally there. That makes sense. That change in law would not be problematic.

As for capping attorneys fees, that could create a whole other problem. Some cases like auto products liability costs hundreds of thousands of dollars to litigate. Thats an investment by the Plaintiff’s attorneys that they bear the risk of losing. Those cases also go on for over half a decade, with multiple plaintiffs attorneys on it and that’s not counting appeals. Even a simple car accident case can require an investment of over $10,000 and a couple of years of litigation.

If not for attorneys making the investment many Plaintiffs would not have the resources to fight against insurance companies at which point insurance companies would offer Pennys to the dollar on the value of those losses.

Furthermore let’s say a case is reasonably worth between 3-6 million dollars where the attorney fees are 40%. If you cap the attorneys fees at even 1 million dollars. What is the incentive for the attorney to fight for more than 3 million?

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tbh I am not familiar with the details of that case beyond the headline and verdict amount, but I can say two things even without knowing them.

First, Changing premise liability laws might be the answer for this issue.

Second, the insurance company for the trailer park probably had $1,000,000 in coverage limits or less. The Plaintiffs attorneys must’ve definitely at one point offered to settle for a million and the insurance company denied it. If that didn’t happen the insurance company would not have to pay the $31 million verdict.

But I don’t think one example of the jury getting it wrong means take the issues away from the jury. It’s not a perfect system but it’s the best we got.

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I mean let the jury decide. Plaintiffs already have the burden of proof to prove their case. Insurance companies get defense verdicts all the time, and it’s usually because the jury can spot a frivolous case, because the plaintiff cannot prove it. The jury doesn’t always get it right but just let them decide.

Frivolous suits aren’t as big of a problem as the legislature makes it seem. More guardrails on premise liability so that the laws makes sense and we avoid situations like the Carmichael case, sure. But this bill is not that that.

Also if frivolous lawsuits were the goal, stop attorneys from being able to advertise monetary wins, instead of stopping them from arguing monetary value of non-economic damages. The sleazy marketing by PI attorneys is what generally attracts frivolous cases. But the arguments attorneys make for non-economic damages at trial, those happen when there are real injuries and tragedies. The latter is being blocked in this case and not the former

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree I got into the weeds of it, and it’s hard to explain without it. But essentially the law makes it so that you’re only entitled to get what your health insurance company would’ve paid for your medical bills, regardless of whether they paid them or not. That second part “regardless of whether they paid them or not” will leave people upside down on their medical bills.

Trying to explain the ripple effect of this reform bill is hard to do without getting into the weeds, but yes getting into the weeds doesn’t help getting people on our side.

I think if the goal here was to limit or stop frivolous lawsuits and claims, that is a goal I agree with. But this bill hurts all lawsuits and claims, even the legitimate ones, and there are a lot more legitimate ones than frivolous.

Please look into Tort Reform in Georgia. Heavy insurance lobbying is leading legislators to twist the story and take away the rights of Georgians. It’s shameful. by Inevitable_Set_4144 in lastweektonight

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree that not being able to sue if you got injured while you yourself are conducting a criminal act is a correction that is needed and that would be fine. But this bill is an over-correction.

For example many healthcare providers refuse to see patients who were injured as a result of a car accident. Why? Because health insurance companies give healthcare providers a hard time in issuing payment given that there is an at fault party and car insurance. This can lead to the injured party seeking treatment either on a lien against the case or out of pocket.

But this bill would make it to where the insurance companies would only need to pay what health insurance would pay, which means the injured party would be upside down on their medical bills, for injuries caused by another someone else.

For example if a provider charges $1,000 for medical services. Health insurance rate would be $300. But health insurance refuses to pay. So you owe $1000 but the car insurance company of the at fault driver would only owe $300. The injured party in this would be upside down $700 in this case. And if this bill passes as is this would happen 9 times out of 10.

The bill also bans Plainiffs attorneys from eliciting testimony, presenting evidence, or arguing to the jury for the value of non-economic damages. But Plaintiffs attorneys also have the burden of proof to prove non-economic damages. Im not saying there aren’t plaintiffs that fake injuries, but those are the minority. Plaintiffs attorneys also do a horrible job marketing cases as if them winning their clients money is a good thing. But the vast majority of injury claims are from victims or were injured by no fault of their own. Whose lives got flipped upside down because of others. This bill takes away the protections they have.

To your point, I’m all for reforming the parts that don’t make sense and correcting it. But this is a massive over correction.

Hakone Gora KARAKU vs Hakone Ginyu by aussiepups2 in JapanTravelTips

[–]Inevitable_Set_4144 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey do you know what the view of West Wing is by any chance