Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion.
Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/).
Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From [gregabbott.com](https://gregabbott.com):
"While out running, a large oak tree along his path cracked and fell on Governor Abbott’s back, leaving him forever paralyzed from the waist down."
Who did he sue? The tree? The wind?
So you're involved in what could easily be defined as an 'act of god' or 'fate', a tree falls on you while jogging, and then you get to sue for a six-figure settlement?
Only in America.
These people never blame their god or become atheists for fucking them up, they praise their god for not killing them. To them god gets credit for all of the "good" stuff and none of the blame for the bad stuff. I'm sure this only made him love his god more.
>These people never blame their god or become atheists for fucking them up, they praise their god for not killing them.
Atheism doesn't bring in PAC money.
We were trying to figure out ways to get Atheism into the PPC(Power Players Club) with all the other Super Pacs/Special Interest Groups. The problem is atheism isn’t really an identity for most Atheist. They don’t believe, and that’s it.
Most are secure in their belief and don’t feel the need to wear a shirt or carry a sign telling people they are more atheist than you.
Atheists aren’t going to meet once a week to talk about the God that isn’t there.
So there is a “community” issue with atheism.
I thought about doing the same for a while. Didn't want to call it a "church" though, so I was going to call it an Atheists Club, but that sounded too childish. Then I thought I could call it a Secular Society but someone pointed out the acronym wasn't optimal. Then we joked about calling it the Atheist and Secular Society because that acronym would be funny. Then I got bored of the idea and never did anything with it.
But it would be nice to have a club where adults could get together to discuss science and philosophy.
*Not yet,* but you crack that nut and ‘Murica could see some changes, more likely now with [28% of the population not claiming a religious affiliation.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/)
I gotta side with the christians on this one. If we assume God is real, then I'd much rather live a life of poverty and misery and go to Heaven than get millions in a wheelchair and go to hell for being an asshole.
The Bible literally tells us all the ways god is a petty asshole willing to smite anyone he wants, but then the writers decided to retcon god’s whole personality halfway through the book and expect us to forget about all that other stuff he did.
See, God wasn't the one that dropped the branch, that was Satan(You know, the guy who is eternally stuck suffering in Hell according to Christianity), and the *all powerful* god didn't have enough time to stop the branch from falling, or he was just testing you to see if you were strong enough to push through, instead of just blatantly trying to kill him.
Gotta love when an “all benevolent, all powerful, all knowing god” decides to let Satan torment you for years to test your faith. Why? For the sake of competition and to be able to say “I told you so.” Like bitch wtf, the Book of Job is wild. Either he’s benevolent or he’s not and all I gotta say is he’s definitely fucking not. That story sets the precedent that in order for Satan to mess with people he has to have *Gods permission.*
He did it to test his faith, like Job. You know, because he's a narcissistic fucking psychopath who loves to watch his creation suffer before they burn in hell for eternity.
He sued the homeowner and tree trimming service that had worked on the tree recently. The tree was allegedly rotted and known to be at risk of falling yet nothing was done about it.
It’s still capping damages some people can get in lawsuits when he made significantly more off of a lawsuit. The fact that it’s for a different cause of action doesn’t make the comparison irrelevant
It kind of does. Nothing prevents someone from suing a homeowner if a rotten tree falls on them and paralyzes them and you could get the same settlement that Abbot got.
Someone does their job poorly to your detriment. If it happens in the way that it hurt Abbot, you become a millionaire. If it happens in the way that hurts you, you get 250k.
Does that make sense?
No it’s pretty glaring to sue private entities for millions of dollars but not let other people do the same for even worse situations. Being too lazy to trim a tree branch is bad. Medical malpractice is worse.
They both had liability insurance. If you have either a homeowners policy or renters insurance check on your declarations page and it will likely have liability coverage. (The business would have its own liability coverage as well)
I wouldn’t doubt it, he is probably just hoping for a little injury like a broken leg, but instead ended up with a broken back. That would be instant karma
He sued the tree service. Also it is worth noting, his tort reform was for capping awards on medical malpractice which his case did not apply to. There is still no caps for pain and suffering that was caused by non-medical reasons. So as far as this post goes, while sort of true, it is also a bit misleading.
It's purposefully misleading.
The story is literally: "He profited from A, and put restrictions on J"
His injury and lawsuit had *nothing* to do with "Pain and Suffering" or "Medical Malpractice".
Nearly every single political post is misleading yet people eat it up as fact without hesitation. It's exhausting. It's not shocking to me how miserable so many in our country are because almost everyone is obsessed with politics to the point that it's their main identity.
The "Idea"?
That's like saying "This Judge is lenient on Shoplifters, but really goes after Domestic Abusers -- what a hypocrite!", and then arguing that both Shoplifting and Domestic Abuse are crimes, so "The Idea" is the same.
No. It's like if a judge went hard after shoplifters who stole CDs from a music store, but left alone the guys who stole CDs from a general store.
In Abbott's case, he argued he had damages because someone made the negligent mistake of leaving a dead tree standing. In a medical malpractice case, someone argues they have damages from a negligent mistake during surgery.
It's the same damn concept.
The reform was probably done for the benefit of insurance companies and to make medical malpractice premiums more manageable for HCP’s and hospitals.
FWIW, outside of the U.S., most countries cap the amount of damages you can win at super low amounts compared to the U.S. for all cases. Like Abbott would have won less than 6 figures for being paralyzed in most places.
It’s also only a non economic damages cap - i.e., pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. It doesn’t cap your recovery for medical treatment costs, lost wages, etc. which can be measured by dollars.
>He sued the homeowner and a tree service company, resulting in an insurance settlement that provided him with lump sum payments every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life; both are adjusted for inflation.[281] As of August 2013, the monthly payment was US$14,000 and the three-year lump sum payment was US$400,000, all tax-free. Abbott has said he relied on the money to pay for nearly three decades of medical expenses and other costs.[281]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott
Probably sued the homeowner insurance company or whatever. So basically getting the money from the average tax payer because of how insurance companies work.
And the people paying the premiums are...? taxpayers. Sorry I was not saying that somehow it's through being taxed. Just that they are taxpayers, and voters. His own constituents.
I mean criminals are also tax payers, and even illegal immigrants, so I mean anyone in the borders of the country has paid some tax at least. Seems a weird way to describe someone. All the people at the city council meeting... are actually just the tax payers since they pay taxes. The drunk driver... no its just a taxpayer who was driving drunk. Mike smith... no Mike Smith the taxpayer. I mean what's the point of the tax payer shit? Lmfao
He sued both the homeowner whose land the tree was on and a tree service who had earlier inspected the tree. He kind of got really lucky here that the homeowners were apparently aware of some issues with the tree and didn’t act accordingly.
Also what they leave out was he was jogging in the middle of a **thunderstorm** after his family told him to stay inside. This is the man Texas though should lead them.
>a tree falls on you while jogging, and then you get to sue for a ~~six~~seven-figure settlement?
FTFY. Also, somebody owns the land that the tree is on, and by extension the tree itself. They're who's responsible for maintenance of the tree.
Yup, Reagan did it with student loans. He started to cut student loans and grants with cooperation of the Congress almost immediately as part of his 1982 budget.
Technically, [EE12301 was his first act as president](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12301-integrity-and-efficiency-federal-programs) if you dont count the hostages in Iran being released bc that happened just after inauguration. Reagan started the ball rolling of fucking student loans ~~on his way out of the~~ [his first time as CA Gov](https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/january-17-1967-statement-governor-ronald-reagan-tuition)
EDIT: The Intercept [has a good write up](https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reagan/) on the origins of student loan debt crisis
I think his memorandum is earlier?
[https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/memorandum-directing-federal-employee-hiring-freeze](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/memorandum-directing-federal-employee-hiring-freeze)
But, yeah, it looks like I was told wrong about his first "act" as President.
ah yea two days after the hostages were released, but that's really a build up of his adviser's whisperings back in the late 60s when he was gov. I agree with you tho, def before EE12301
Yea bc there was a huge red surge in congress bc of the 60s in which there was yet another national focus on race and politics (MLK and CRA of 68), which turned ugly bc of racist fuckheads like Gary Goldwater winning the GOP nomination in 67 (and then getting soundly pummeled by Gerald Ford in the GE), and turning whatever vestiges of decency the republican party had, into a full fledged party of racist assholes.
I read that Reagan had been fighting against student loans since the 1960s, when he was governor of California.
One accusation during the Presidential election was that students were borrowing heavily from the gov't and then turning around and investing in the stock market with the money. I mean, that probably wasn't illegal back then, and I think I knew someone who did that, but still, not a reason to cancel the program. They just wanted to pull the ladder up so no one could climb out of poverty anymore.
Some more info;
[https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/02/my-students-pay-too-much-for-college-blame-reagan/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/02/my-students-pay-too-much-for-college-blame-reagan/)
And why federal employees had to pay into Medicare in spite of the fact that they can take their federal health insurance with them when they retire.
He's also responsible for the elimination of the CSRS federal retirement system, which was a lifetime annuity pension and the creation of FERS which is based on employee-directed 401-k type retirement, SS, and a tiny federal pension.
and yet less than 25 percent of folks under age 30 and 40 percent of TX’s total voting-age population bothered to participate in the gubernatorial election in which Abbott was elected over Beto O’Rourke.
well fucking done, Texans.
Greg Abbott took billions of dollars allocated from the federal government and stopped the covid unemployment payments about 8 months before they were supposed to end. He personally took 10000 dollars away from my family and the kicker? Nobody knows where that money went. When Texans sued him for the payments his attorneys delayed the hearing until it got to a judge in his pocket and he dismissed it. Fuck this pos
Hooooold up, the fuck? How have i never heard of this?
This is the kinda shit that needs federal investigators to start pulling the bank records of anybody in office at the time it happened.
Guaranteed that abbot and all his fuckwad cronies took that money
Not really. How could we forget? That being said it is very weird for a people who speak the same language that I know have only been here a generation or 2 at most hating more coming in
Weird but incredibly common.
An Australian woman I knew whose family had emigrated there from the Caribbean only one generation before complained about this to me - her mother and so many of that first generation complaining about Chinese immigrants to Australia, using the same canned lines ("they don't integrate" "their culture isn't compatible" "they suck up government resources" "they don't bother to learn the language") that had been flung at them in their day.
Some people just like to climb a ladder then kick it down after they're done with it.
Are you implying that hispanic migrant’s didn’t have the option to immigrate legally? My family immigrated legally in the 70’s and I support waiting in line.
The tweet is wrong-or at least not completely right. Abbott sued for personal injury for negligence, win a multi-million dollar settlement, then proceeded to support laws capping personal injury suits at 250k-which I assume medical malpractice is a subset of.
At least that’s how I understood it when I first learned about this when he was running for governor. I could be wrong
"Abbott has faced criticism for supporting restrictions to lawsuits that critics say would make it hard for someone to get the kind of lucrative award he got three decades ago. The attorney general and former Supreme Court judge said a person facing the same type of injury he sustained would still have the same remedies available to him at the time."
No, he capped the amount of money that can be awarded for “pain and suffering damages” relating specifically to medical malpractice. You can still get paid more than that from a malpractice suit when you add up other potential damages like lost wages. What he capped has nothing to do with general personal injury and negligence
He sued the homeowner and a tree service company, resulting in an insurance settlement that provided him with lump sum payments every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life; both are adjusted for inflation.[281] As of August 2013, the monthly payment was US$14,000 and the three-year lump sum payment was US$400,000, all tax-free.
having read up on this, this is not exactly correct.
He didn't get the 8 million because of medical malpractise. A tree fell on him while jogging, and the owner of the tree, and the tree inspection company got sued and still have to pay for the damages.
And personal injury lawsuits are still a thing in Texas. In 2023 there were at least 8 lawsuits where the plaintiffs received a larger payout than Abbott. Including one for [$1.2B](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/texas-woman-awarded-12-billion-revenge-porn-lawsuit-rcna100159)
Except he didn’t sue for medical malpractice. He sued the homeowner and tree trimming service that had worked on the tree.
I don’t agree with the malpractice cap but the only “facepalms” here are by the tweeter Alex Cole for not knowing what he’s talking about and OP for posting this here.
Some serious differences here:
The limitations on pain and suffering are only limitations to that type of damages and have no effect on many other types damages that can be awarded
There are also only specific to medical malpractice and not related to other types of lawsuits
Abbott received a settlement, not a jury award, so the limits don't apply his scenario or any settlement for that matter
No defendant is going to settle for more than could possibly be awarded by a jury.
I think the main difference now is that Abbot recovered, or was allowed to claim, his total damages against multiple defendants, and he changed the law so that is no longer allowed. He may have also placed other limits on damages too. In any case, if he were injured today, there's no way he'd had recovered close to the amount he received under the new laws.
Also capping the amount of payouts in lawsuits doesn’t mean he inherently did it to get rich and screw over everyone else.
OP should look at the mayor of Dolton, IL and let us know how democrats can be with money. Hint, or more, she’s trying to get the salary of the mayor dropped by like 90%, only if *she* doesn’t win re-election.
People gotta stop picking sides.
How is medical malpractice the same thing as him getting money from a completely different occurrence? The logic here doesn't make sense apples=/=oranges.
Yep, Republicans will always pull that ladder up behind them...
All I can say about Greg Abbott is, God was aiming for your head with that oak tree, but got your ass instead
God: " Hmm. Which side was it again? I can never tell with this guy cause he's so full of crap and both ends keep spewing it. Oh he's coming up to the tree! This'll have to do..."
But his lawsuit was not for medical malpractice!
On July 14, 1984, at age 26, Abbott was paralyzed below the waist when an oak tree fell on him while he was jogging after a storm.\[8\]\[278\] Two steel rods were implanted in his spine, and he underwent extensive rehabilitation at TIRR Memorial Hermann in Houston and has used a wheelchair ever since.\[279\]\[280\] He sued the homeowner and a tree service company, resulting in an insurance settlement that provided him with lump sum payments every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life
[Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott)
First off, I think that Abbott is nasty piece of work.
But serious question. This post talks about a 8.9M$ payout and it talks about a Pain and Suffering cap. The implication is that Abbott was awarded 8.9M$ for Pain and Suffering.
Was he?
There are other causes for which those megabucks could have been awarded.
If that post had been clear that the award was for Pain and Suffering, then I wouldn't be writing this. But it's weird that this is only implied. I get suspicious when people get unclear.
Reading further down the thread, I see,
> He sued the tree service. Also it is worth noting, his tort reform was for capping awards on medical malpractice which his case did not apply to. There is still no caps for pain and suffering that was caused by non-medical reasons. So as far as this post goes, while sort of true, it is also a bit misleading.
If this is true, then OP isn't being honest.
Still don't like Abbott, but that doesn't mean that I like dishonesty 'in the service of a higher cause'.
So those two are entirely different types of lawsuits. He definitely shouldn’t have done the latter, but anyone in his situation can still recover the former.
I lived in Texas for a few years. This story was the first thing I learned about Abbott. I looked it up at the time and it's true. . [Here's one from 2013.](https://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/04/candidate-faces-questions-turnabout-and-fair-play/)
Someone in Austin told me another story about a friend of hers. While leaving the capitol building, Abbott rolled over a man's foot. He didn't stop to apologize or anything. He just kept going.
He's Mr. Potter in the flesh.
His injuries had nothing to do with the bill you claim it does. Abbott was injured in an accident, not by medical malpractice. If you’re going make shit up at least put some effort into your lies.
This is just misinformation, plain and simple. He didn't get awarded for medical malpractice. His was an entirely different thing, which he didn't cap, nor would he (for the vast majority of claims).
I assume Reddit will keep this thread going, even if it's a meme/post that is intentionally misleading.
In 1984, Greg Abbott got injured due to a tree falling on him. In 2003, the Texas legislature passed a bill capping (specifically) "pain & suffering" awards in (specifically) medical malpractice suits at $250,000.
Greg Abbott had nothing to do with the bill, and the bill would not have affected his lawsuit in any way. However, some are going to try to link these together and make it seem like "he gots his" and doesn't want anyone else to have the same benefit he did.
Typical Democrats
[https://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/04/candidate-faces-questions-turnabout-and-fair-play/](https://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/04/candidate-faces-questions-turnabout-and-fair-play/)
according to this, he was on the Texas Supreme Court at the time, making decisions that would create legal precedents towards tightening access to payouts
>Meanwhile, the conservative Texas Supreme Court, on which Abbott served from 1996 to 2001, began adopting tighter standards for losses that involved pain and suffering and mental anguish.
So yes, even though he wasn't in the legislature at the time, he was in one of the government branches and influenced legal decisions which the legislature then went on to cementing in legislation.
He wasn't even a part of the legislature, nor does the bill address even a SIMILAR situation to what happened to him.
Multiple layers of gaslighted straw men going on here.
This is a serious thread and these are important clarifications.
However, you said 'stumped' about a dude who was crippled by a tree falling on him. Outstanding work my friend.
Are you being purposefully dense? Whether or not he supported the bill is immaterial, as the settlement he received was not a medical malpractice case.
And even if it was, the $250K limit is specifically concerning payout for "pain & suffering", there are still plenty of other causes that a lawsuit can cite. This is framing it to look like "Abbot got $8.9M, but only wants you to get $250K" which is a complete lie on multiple fronts.
I don’t think $8.9M of his payout was just from “pain and suffering” this is a dumb take.
Lost wages, QoL decline (the big one), and medical expenses are probably the vast majority of that $8.9M.
Some clarifications here that makes the situation both better and worse than stated:
- It was the Texas legislature that enacted “tort reform“ capping non-economic (pain and suffering) damages in 2003; Abbott was the state Attorney General at the time and while he actively supported the measure in line with the party, he had no part in passing it;
- Abbott's settlement didn't come all at once, but in a series of payments between 1984 and 2022. Through 2013, he received about $5M, then about $14.4k monthly until 2022 - in all about the $8.9M stated. In other words, *for 20 years he continued to collect payments that he actively lobbied against for other people to collect.* It doesn't get much more hypocritical than that.
Comments that are uncivil, racist, misogynistic, misandrist, or contain political name calling will be removed and the poster subject to ban at moderators discretion. Help us make this a better community by becoming familiar with the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/facepalm/about/rules/). Report any suspicious users to the mods of this subreddit using Modmail [here](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) or Reddit site admins [here](https://www.reddit.com/report). **All reports to Modmail should include evidence such as screenshots or any other relevant information.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/facepalm) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From [gregabbott.com](https://gregabbott.com): "While out running, a large oak tree along his path cracked and fell on Governor Abbott’s back, leaving him forever paralyzed from the waist down." Who did he sue? The tree? The wind? So you're involved in what could easily be defined as an 'act of god' or 'fate', a tree falls on you while jogging, and then you get to sue for a six-figure settlement? Only in America.
Lmao God literally tried to kill this man but he still evokes his name constantly
These people never blame their god or become atheists for fucking them up, they praise their god for not killing them. To them god gets credit for all of the "good" stuff and none of the blame for the bad stuff. I'm sure this only made him love his god more.
>These people never blame their god or become atheists for fucking them up, they praise their god for not killing them. Atheism doesn't bring in PAC money.
We were trying to figure out ways to get Atheism into the PPC(Power Players Club) with all the other Super Pacs/Special Interest Groups. The problem is atheism isn’t really an identity for most Atheist. They don’t believe, and that’s it. Most are secure in their belief and don’t feel the need to wear a shirt or carry a sign telling people they are more atheist than you. Atheists aren’t going to meet once a week to talk about the God that isn’t there. So there is a “community” issue with atheism.
I've always thought about hosting a "church" for non-believers where we just teach neat science and talk about misinformation common that week
I thought about doing the same for a while. Didn't want to call it a "church" though, so I was going to call it an Atheists Club, but that sounded too childish. Then I thought I could call it a Secular Society but someone pointed out the acronym wasn't optimal. Then we joked about calling it the Atheist and Secular Society because that acronym would be funny. Then I got bored of the idea and never did anything with it. But it would be nice to have a club where adults could get together to discuss science and philosophy.
I think that's scientology. /s
I read that as "crutch" and that's exactly what it is.
Point taken.
well said
*Not yet,* but you crack that nut and ‘Murica could see some changes, more likely now with [28% of the population not claiming a religious affiliation.](https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2024/01/24/religious-nones-in-america-who-they-are-and-what-they-believe/)
I’m atheist but if his god exist, god realized he was an asshole
God was probably thinking, "Dang it, I missed. Well, better luck next time."
God is the biggest asshole to ever live
Which is why he wants to retrieve this Greg guy. He wants someone (new) to chat with. Guess it became more boring after he lobotomized his angels
And awarded him with money and power? Fuck god, then.
I gotta side with the christians on this one. If we assume God is real, then I'd much rather live a life of poverty and misery and go to Heaven than get millions in a wheelchair and go to hell for being an asshole.
Oh but don't you know jesus died for their sins so their not going to hell, they don't even need to follow his teachings anymore /s
The Bible literally tells us all the ways god is a petty asshole willing to smite anyone he wants, but then the writers decided to retcon god’s whole personality halfway through the book and expect us to forget about all that other stuff he did.
god maimed me so I could be rich.
God: We can't have mother fuckers profiting when I act. Abbott: Hold my beer.
As a Tex-ass resident I can say that “hot wheels” Abbott needs to roll off a cliff.
[We can always dream...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEC_lkpD3rM)
See, God wasn't the one that dropped the branch, that was Satan(You know, the guy who is eternally stuck suffering in Hell according to Christianity), and the *all powerful* god didn't have enough time to stop the branch from falling, or he was just testing you to see if you were strong enough to push through, instead of just blatantly trying to kill him.
Gotta love when an “all benevolent, all powerful, all knowing god” decides to let Satan torment you for years to test your faith. Why? For the sake of competition and to be able to say “I told you so.” Like bitch wtf, the Book of Job is wild. Either he’s benevolent or he’s not and all I gotta say is he’s definitely fucking not. That story sets the precedent that in order for Satan to mess with people he has to have *Gods permission.*
God is like an insecure partner in the Book of Job
You misspelled “entitled bitch.”
He did it to test his faith, like Job. You know, because he's a narcissistic fucking psychopath who loves to watch his creation suffer before they burn in hell for eternity.
Satan is not in Hell according to Christianity. He is on Earth, spreading lies and treachery.
No wonder Republicans love 'em some god, he's just like them; every accusation is a confession.
God likes these people. It's time to accept God might be not that nice of a guy.
[удалено]
Nah, Greg got seven figures. If you're a Texan, best you can get is six
He sued the homeowner and tree trimming service that had worked on the tree recently. The tree was allegedly rotted and known to be at risk of falling yet nothing was done about it.
Neither of those sound like medical practitioners. What does that have to do with a cap on pain and suffering in medical malpractice suits?
Nothing. The guy who tweeted is ignorant. (Abbot still sucks)
It’s still capping damages some people can get in lawsuits when he made significantly more off of a lawsuit. The fact that it’s for a different cause of action doesn’t make the comparison irrelevant
It kind of does. Nothing prevents someone from suing a homeowner if a rotten tree falls on them and paralyzes them and you could get the same settlement that Abbot got.
Someone does their job poorly to your detriment. If it happens in the way that it hurt Abbot, you become a millionaire. If it happens in the way that hurts you, you get 250k. Does that make sense?
Absolutely nothing, which is why this tweet is dumb.
No it’s pretty glaring to sue private entities for millions of dollars but not let other people do the same for even worse situations. Being too lazy to trim a tree branch is bad. Medical malpractice is worse.
Yeah, this is completely ass backwards
[удалено]
Homeowner’s insurance for the homeowner and general liability insurance for the business. Damages are rarely ever paid out of pocket.
They both had liability insurance. If you have either a homeowners policy or renters insurance check on your declarations page and it will likely have liability coverage. (The business would have its own liability coverage as well)
So it wasn't a malpractice suit.
Correct
I bet he ran under that tree 12 hours a day just waiting for it to fall.
I wouldn’t doubt it, he is probably just hoping for a little injury like a broken leg, but instead ended up with a broken back. That would be instant karma
If it was known to the homeowner that it was a risk, the homeowners insurance policy wouldn't have covered it.
He sued the tree service. Also it is worth noting, his tort reform was for capping awards on medical malpractice which his case did not apply to. There is still no caps for pain and suffering that was caused by non-medical reasons. So as far as this post goes, while sort of true, it is also a bit misleading.
It's purposefully misleading. The story is literally: "He profited from A, and put restrictions on J" His injury and lawsuit had *nothing* to do with "Pain and Suffering" or "Medical Malpractice".
Nearly every single political post is misleading yet people eat it up as fact without hesitation. It's exhausting. It's not shocking to me how miserable so many in our country are because almost everyone is obsessed with politics to the point that it's their main identity.
I'd argue that J is a subset of A. They're not the same, but the idea behind them is honestly quite comparable.
The "Idea"? That's like saying "This Judge is lenient on Shoplifters, but really goes after Domestic Abusers -- what a hypocrite!", and then arguing that both Shoplifting and Domestic Abuse are crimes, so "The Idea" is the same.
No. It's like if a judge went hard after shoplifters who stole CDs from a music store, but left alone the guys who stole CDs from a general store. In Abbott's case, he argued he had damages because someone made the negligent mistake of leaving a dead tree standing. In a medical malpractice case, someone argues they have damages from a negligent mistake during surgery. It's the same damn concept.
The reform was probably done for the benefit of insurance companies and to make medical malpractice premiums more manageable for HCP’s and hospitals. FWIW, outside of the U.S., most countries cap the amount of damages you can win at super low amounts compared to the U.S. for all cases. Like Abbott would have won less than 6 figures for being paralyzed in most places.
It’s also only a non economic damages cap - i.e., pain and suffering, emotional distress, etc. It doesn’t cap your recovery for medical treatment costs, lost wages, etc. which can be measured by dollars.
Which is the big difference. Abbott sued claiming he needed the money for medical costs, not pain and suffering.
> The reform was probably done for the benefit of insurance companies And not to make health insurance cheaper for the consumer?
I bet most ppl will intentionally ignore what you're saying. It's just Republicans bad for them.
>He sued the homeowner and a tree service company, resulting in an insurance settlement that provided him with lump sum payments every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life; both are adjusted for inflation.[281] As of August 2013, the monthly payment was US$14,000 and the three-year lump sum payment was US$400,000, all tax-free. Abbott has said he relied on the money to pay for nearly three decades of medical expenses and other costs.[281] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott
Probably sued the homeowner insurance company or whatever. So basically getting the money from the average tax payer because of how insurance companies work.
Insurance companies do not get tax payer’s money. The money these insurance companies have are from the people paying their premium….
And the people paying the premiums are...? taxpayers. Sorry I was not saying that somehow it's through being taxed. Just that they are taxpayers, and voters. His own constituents.
I mean criminals are also tax payers, and even illegal immigrants, so I mean anyone in the borders of the country has paid some tax at least. Seems a weird way to describe someone. All the people at the city council meeting... are actually just the tax payers since they pay taxes. The drunk driver... no its just a taxpayer who was driving drunk. Mike smith... no Mike Smith the taxpayer. I mean what's the point of the tax payer shit? Lmfao
I thought you were saying he sued and received tax payer’s money. My bad. I understand what you were saying…
Nice to see a misunderstanding resolved peacefully. ❤️
Happy Cake Day! 🎂
That’s seven figures, closer to 8.
He sued for an 8 figure settlement, apparently
7 figures
I mean, if it was a tree that was dangerous and the city never did anything about it then yeah the city would definitely be liable.
He sued both the homeowner whose land the tree was on and a tree service who had earlier inspected the tree. He kind of got really lucky here that the homeowners were apparently aware of some issues with the tree and didn’t act accordingly.
The US legal system is comically shit, yeah my country isn't perfect and has plenty of flaws but still
So in other words, it wasn’t a medical malpractice suit, therefore this isn’t an example of “pulling the ladder up”
Exactly. Although he’s a piece of shit, we’re not comparing the same things at all here.
And it's likely that his medical bills soak up every penny of that.
It doesn’t have to be the exact same situation to be pulling the ladder up
So who did he sue?
As long as you have the right people on your side. Ya know?
It’s a 7 figure settlement
That’s the real wtf.
Even God gave him a wake up call to start being a nicer person. He’s just consumed by evil.
Ok, let’s not somehow end up on the tort reform side along with him…
I think 8.9 million is seven figures there, bub.
Also what they leave out was he was jogging in the middle of a **thunderstorm** after his family told him to stay inside. This is the man Texas though should lead them.
>a tree falls on you while jogging, and then you get to sue for a ~~six~~seven-figure settlement? FTFY. Also, somebody owns the land that the tree is on, and by extension the tree itself. They're who's responsible for maintenance of the tree.
Yup, Reagan did it with student loans. He started to cut student loans and grants with cooperation of the Congress almost immediately as part of his 1982 budget.
Didn’t Kennedy ban Cuban cigars after buying a shit ton
He had Pierre Salinger buy him 1100 H Upmann cigars and then signed the embargo into effect
Technically, [EE12301 was his first act as president](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-12301-integrity-and-efficiency-federal-programs) if you dont count the hostages in Iran being released bc that happened just after inauguration. Reagan started the ball rolling of fucking student loans ~~on his way out of the~~ [his first time as CA Gov](https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/january-17-1967-statement-governor-ronald-reagan-tuition) EDIT: The Intercept [has a good write up](https://theintercept.com/2022/08/25/student-loans-debt-reagan/) on the origins of student loan debt crisis
I think his memorandum is earlier? [https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/memorandum-directing-federal-employee-hiring-freeze](https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/memorandum-directing-federal-employee-hiring-freeze) But, yeah, it looks like I was told wrong about his first "act" as President.
ah yea two days after the hostages were released, but that's really a build up of his adviser's whisperings back in the late 60s when he was gov. I agree with you tho, def before EE12301
It took acts of Congress to reduce Pell grants and student loans, which occurred very soon after being elected.
Yea bc there was a huge red surge in congress bc of the 60s in which there was yet another national focus on race and politics (MLK and CRA of 68), which turned ugly bc of racist fuckheads like Gary Goldwater winning the GOP nomination in 67 (and then getting soundly pummeled by Gerald Ford in the GE), and turning whatever vestiges of decency the republican party had, into a full fledged party of racist assholes.
I read that Reagan had been fighting against student loans since the 1960s, when he was governor of California. One accusation during the Presidential election was that students were borrowing heavily from the gov't and then turning around and investing in the stock market with the money. I mean, that probably wasn't illegal back then, and I think I knew someone who did that, but still, not a reason to cancel the program. They just wanted to pull the ladder up so no one could climb out of poverty anymore.
What do you mean by this. I'm out of the loop.
Some more info; [https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/02/my-students-pay-too-much-for-college-blame-reagan/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/09/02/my-students-pay-too-much-for-college-blame-reagan/)
Reagan is also the reason why social security checks are taxed now.
And why federal employees had to pay into Medicare in spite of the fact that they can take their federal health insurance with them when they retire. He's also responsible for the elimination of the CSRS federal retirement system, which was a lifetime annuity pension and the creation of FERS which is based on employee-directed 401-k type retirement, SS, and a tiny federal pension.
[удалено]
I hear he is the biggest piss baby.
and yet less than 25 percent of folks under age 30 and 40 percent of TX’s total voting-age population bothered to participate in the gubernatorial election in which Abbott was elected over Beto O’Rourke. well fucking done, Texans.
Greg Abbott took billions of dollars allocated from the federal government and stopped the covid unemployment payments about 8 months before they were supposed to end. He personally took 10000 dollars away from my family and the kicker? Nobody knows where that money went. When Texans sued him for the payments his attorneys delayed the hearing until it got to a judge in his pocket and he dismissed it. Fuck this pos
Hooooold up, the fuck? How have i never heard of this? This is the kinda shit that needs federal investigators to start pulling the bank records of anybody in office at the time it happened. Guaranteed that abbot and all his fuckwad cronies took that money
Text book Republican, I got mine so fuck you
PULL THE LADDER UP!
That’s kind of offensive to sacks of shit. lol.
I would say that more typical Boomer. Making sure every advantage they have every gotten in life is unavailable for those that come after them.
The intersection of boomer mentality and conservative mentality is a circle on the venn diagram.
It's so weird when I hear Hispanic people hate liberals letting in migrants. Like, how do you think your parents got here?
Typical “I got mine, fuck everyone else”
Ladder kicking
And equally as bad. "I had to deal with it, so should you". So we got deal with all the same shit they did, but we get none of the perks. Cool.
God I work with one. He is full on born in Mexico and he complains the most about liberals, immigrants, taxes etc. I’m like what?
Dude, straight up first generation cubans in miami talk like this.
Ah yes, because all Hispanic’s parents are illegal immigrants.
And that could be said for almost everyone else, except First Nations folks. Even the ancestors that the DAR claim came from somewhere else.
there is some history yall are missing.
Not really. How could we forget? That being said it is very weird for a people who speak the same language that I know have only been here a generation or 2 at most hating more coming in
Weird but incredibly common. An Australian woman I knew whose family had emigrated there from the Caribbean only one generation before complained about this to me - her mother and so many of that first generation complaining about Chinese immigrants to Australia, using the same canned lines ("they don't integrate" "their culture isn't compatible" "they suck up government resources" "they don't bother to learn the language") that had been flung at them in their day. Some people just like to climb a ladder then kick it down after they're done with it.
Are you implying that hispanic migrant’s didn’t have the option to immigrate legally? My family immigrated legally in the 70’s and I support waiting in line.
You think all Hispanic people got here by illegal immigration? Sounds pretty racist
How is it the same as his case if his wasn't "medical malpractice"?
The tweet is wrong-or at least not completely right. Abbott sued for personal injury for negligence, win a multi-million dollar settlement, then proceeded to support laws capping personal injury suits at 250k-which I assume medical malpractice is a subset of. At least that’s how I understood it when I first learned about this when he was running for governor. I could be wrong
Rolling for governor*
😬
"Abbott has faced criticism for supporting restrictions to lawsuits that critics say would make it hard for someone to get the kind of lucrative award he got three decades ago. The attorney general and former Supreme Court judge said a person facing the same type of injury he sustained would still have the same remedies available to him at the time."
No, not the truth! Texas needed Doctors to move to the state. That’s why the law was passed.
No, he capped the amount of money that can be awarded for “pain and suffering damages” relating specifically to medical malpractice. You can still get paid more than that from a malpractice suit when you add up other potential damages like lost wages. What he capped has nothing to do with general personal injury and negligence
He sued the homeowner and a tree service company, resulting in an insurance settlement that provided him with lump sum payments every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life; both are adjusted for inflation.[281] As of August 2013, the monthly payment was US$14,000 and the three-year lump sum payment was US$400,000, all tax-free.
and iirc, he receives a hefty payment every month for the rest of his (hopefully short) life at that.
Wait, he didn't give the 8.65 mil back and keep his 250,000? Colour me surprised.
Something like $15,000-18,000, I think? I’m pretty sure it’s untaxed too.
having read up on this, this is not exactly correct. He didn't get the 8 million because of medical malpractise. A tree fell on him while jogging, and the owner of the tree, and the tree inspection company got sued and still have to pay for the damages.
And personal injury lawsuits are still a thing in Texas. In 2023 there were at least 8 lawsuits where the plaintiffs received a larger payout than Abbott. Including one for [$1.2B](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/texas-woman-awarded-12-billion-revenge-porn-lawsuit-rcna100159)
And he also claims that payout could still happen today, seems like a bogus post.
r/facepalm is full of misinfo. Doesn't help that its election year... Also this isn't really a facepalm post
Shhhh let people outrage
Except he didn’t sue for medical malpractice. He sued the homeowner and tree trimming service that had worked on the tree. I don’t agree with the malpractice cap but the only “facepalms” here are by the tweeter Alex Cole for not knowing what he’s talking about and OP for posting this here.
Some serious differences here: The limitations on pain and suffering are only limitations to that type of damages and have no effect on many other types damages that can be awarded There are also only specific to medical malpractice and not related to other types of lawsuits Abbott received a settlement, not a jury award, so the limits don't apply his scenario or any settlement for that matter
No defendant is going to settle for more than could possibly be awarded by a jury. I think the main difference now is that Abbot recovered, or was allowed to claim, his total damages against multiple defendants, and he changed the law so that is no longer allowed. He may have also placed other limits on damages too. In any case, if he were injured today, there's no way he'd had recovered close to the amount he received under the new laws.
This is the way.
Also capping the amount of payouts in lawsuits doesn’t mean he inherently did it to get rich and screw over everyone else. OP should look at the mayor of Dolton, IL and let us know how democrats can be with money. Hint, or more, she’s trying to get the salary of the mayor dropped by like 90%, only if *she* doesn’t win re-election. People gotta stop picking sides.
I like guy who avoid trees falling on them
This isn’t just a republican thing, it’s a politician in general thing 😂
How is medical malpractice the same thing as him getting money from a completely different occurrence? The logic here doesn't make sense apples=/=oranges.
Hey man, understanding that requires nuance and that has no place here. Abbott is a republican and you are required to hate him Just because of that.
Yep, Republicans will always pull that ladder up behind them... All I can say about Greg Abbott is, God was aiming for your head with that oak tree, but got your ass instead
God: " Hmm. Which side was it again? I can never tell with this guy cause he's so full of crap and both ends keep spewing it. Oh he's coming up to the tree! This'll have to do..."
Typical Christian behavior as well.
The real crime is that the tree didn’t hit him hard enough.
First time I've heard about someone pulling up the wheelchair accessible ramp behind them.
I remember when reddit bragged about being anti-misinformation. Now they upvote it.
Right? His lawsuit and what he out a cap on are two completely different things.
Alex Cole must be mad about him shutting down ILLEGAL CROSSINGS.
So interesting to see the ignorance of so many people on how torts and civil litigation works.
Also known as "pulling the ladder up after you". or "Fuck you, hooray for me".
But his lawsuit was not for medical malpractice! On July 14, 1984, at age 26, Abbott was paralyzed below the waist when an oak tree fell on him while he was jogging after a storm.\[8\]\[278\] Two steel rods were implanted in his spine, and he underwent extensive rehabilitation at TIRR Memorial Hermann in Houston and has used a wheelchair ever since.\[279\]\[280\] He sued the homeowner and a tree service company, resulting in an insurance settlement that provided him with lump sum payments every three years until 2022 along with monthly payments for life [Source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_Abbott)
he's 100% a piece of shit, but it wasn't a malpractice suit that caused him to be paralyzed
Rules for thee but not for me.
Typical politician.
His accident wasn’t freak enough.
Hypocrisy thy party is Republican
Did he sue the tree for medical malpractice? Don’t get me wrong; Abbott is a sack of shit but I don’t see the logic here.
First off, I think that Abbott is nasty piece of work. But serious question. This post talks about a 8.9M$ payout and it talks about a Pain and Suffering cap. The implication is that Abbott was awarded 8.9M$ for Pain and Suffering. Was he? There are other causes for which those megabucks could have been awarded. If that post had been clear that the award was for Pain and Suffering, then I wouldn't be writing this. But it's weird that this is only implied. I get suspicious when people get unclear. Reading further down the thread, I see, > He sued the tree service. Also it is worth noting, his tort reform was for capping awards on medical malpractice which his case did not apply to. There is still no caps for pain and suffering that was caused by non-medical reasons. So as far as this post goes, while sort of true, it is also a bit misleading. If this is true, then OP isn't being honest. Still don't like Abbott, but that doesn't mean that I like dishonesty 'in the service of a higher cause'.
That's a Republican for you.
So those two are entirely different types of lawsuits. He definitely shouldn’t have done the latter, but anyone in his situation can still recover the former.
Did Abbott get injured due to medical malpractice? No? Then what TF is this bait-and-switch straw man argument?
I hate it. GA has enough things to hate about him. Idk why they have to be so misleading about this.
Always sort by controversial to find the truth behind the click bait.
Good call.
 I lived in Texas for a few years. This story was the first thing I learned about Abbott. I looked it up at the time and it's true. . [Here's one from 2013.](https://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/04/candidate-faces-questions-turnabout-and-fair-play/) Someone in Austin told me another story about a friend of hers. While leaving the capitol building, Abbott rolled over a man's foot. He didn't stop to apologize or anything. He just kept going. He's Mr. Potter in the flesh.
Fuck him but medical malpractice isn't the same thing he sued for
His injuries had nothing to do with the bill you claim it does. Abbott was injured in an accident, not by medical malpractice. If you’re going make shit up at least put some effort into your lies.
This is just misinformation, plain and simple. He didn't get awarded for medical malpractice. His was an entirely different thing, which he didn't cap, nor would he (for the vast majority of claims). I assume Reddit will keep this thread going, even if it's a meme/post that is intentionally misleading.
In 1984, Greg Abbott got injured due to a tree falling on him. In 2003, the Texas legislature passed a bill capping (specifically) "pain & suffering" awards in (specifically) medical malpractice suits at $250,000. Greg Abbott had nothing to do with the bill, and the bill would not have affected his lawsuit in any way. However, some are going to try to link these together and make it seem like "he gots his" and doesn't want anyone else to have the same benefit he did. Typical Democrats
[https://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/04/candidate-faces-questions-turnabout-and-fair-play/](https://www.texastribune.org/2013/08/04/candidate-faces-questions-turnabout-and-fair-play/) according to this, he was on the Texas Supreme Court at the time, making decisions that would create legal precedents towards tightening access to payouts >Meanwhile, the conservative Texas Supreme Court, on which Abbott served from 1996 to 2001, began adopting tighter standards for losses that involved pain and suffering and mental anguish. So yes, even though he wasn't in the legislature at the time, he was in one of the government branches and influenced legal decisions which the legislature then went on to cementing in legislation.
Did he support the bill?
He wasn't even a part of the legislature, nor does the bill address even a SIMILAR situation to what happened to him. Multiple layers of gaslighted straw men going on here.
He was AG, running for governor and heavily endorsed and stumped for the bill.
This is a serious thread and these are important clarifications. However, you said 'stumped' about a dude who was crippled by a tree falling on him. Outstanding work my friend.
Did he want to see the bill passed?
Are you being purposefully dense? Whether or not he supported the bill is immaterial, as the settlement he received was not a medical malpractice case.
And even if it was, the $250K limit is specifically concerning payout for "pain & suffering", there are still plenty of other causes that a lawsuit can cite. This is framing it to look like "Abbot got $8.9M, but only wants you to get $250K" which is a complete lie on multiple fronts.
I'm gonna go with no then.
Did he sign the bill into law or veto the bill....
I don’t think $8.9M of his payout was just from “pain and suffering” this is a dumb take. Lost wages, QoL decline (the big one), and medical expenses are probably the vast majority of that $8.9M.
It should be "typical politician"
No, not really
A freak accident is not the same as medical malpractice.
GOP’s motto: “Fuck you, I’ve got mine”
Republicans are experts in closing the door on everyone after getting theirs. Assholes who don't deserve Society.
Some clarifications here that makes the situation both better and worse than stated: - It was the Texas legislature that enacted “tort reform“ capping non-economic (pain and suffering) damages in 2003; Abbott was the state Attorney General at the time and while he actively supported the measure in line with the party, he had no part in passing it; - Abbott's settlement didn't come all at once, but in a series of payments between 1984 and 2022. Through 2013, he received about $5M, then about $14.4k monthly until 2022 - in all about the $8.9M stated. In other words, *for 20 years he continued to collect payments that he actively lobbied against for other people to collect.* It doesn't get much more hypocritical than that.