Woman Suing Procter & Gamble Over Hair Loss
Many people seem to find a way to make a bundle in our litigious society. There is no doubt that hair dyes can cause problems such as skin allergy in some people, burns from improper applications of the dyes, etc. Television has many soap opera presentations of such litigations. A good company like P&G should have adequate disclosures on the products to cover the individual risks of particular patients. $12 million is a lot of money. The legal costs to pursuing such a case is high and for P&G, the cost is higher just to build and present a defense. Many times, companies like P&G will pay off the pursuers just to avoid the legal costs and internal management costs for nuisance cases. The lawyers that take on such battles know that, so this is like a game of Russian Roulette with money as the bullet in the chamber. As clearly stated in the article, “Once Ross’ firm determined the extent of Mack’s injuries, more formal negotiations began.”
I understand that it’s increasingly in vogue to fault lawsuits for the rising costs associated with medical care, but the proposition is simply untrue. First, the supposedly gargantuan legal fees incurred by the healthcare industry amount to less than one percent of all money spent on healthcare. Accordingly, the veiled suggestion that lawsuits are responsible for the meteoric rise in malpractice-insurance rates is a figment. Second, even where insurance-company lobbyists have compelled states to enact protectionist legislation, the decline in insurance rates has ranged from small to nonexistent.
The unassailable fact of the matter is that malpractice-insurance rates are far more closely aligned with the fortunes of the insurance industry than with the prevalence of lawsuits. Is it any surprise that medical-malpractice insurance spiked in 2000 when the stock market began to tank? What happened is obvious: during the mid-90s, when it seemed that even the most dubious stock was reaching dizzying heights, the insurance industry brought its chips down to Wall Street and won. And won. And won. And won again. But the insurance companies myopically overextended themselves with dubious investments, so when it all came crashing down in 2000-2001, they needed to recover that money, and they’ve decided to focus on an easy target: doctors. After all, doctors (1) MUST carry the insurance; and (2) have the money to pay.
As a side note, I wouldn’t lose too much sleep for Proctor & Gamble, doctor. The company NETTED $6.6 billion last year despite all those pesky lawsuits. Methinks they’ll be able to keep the lights on.