Rick Santorum's Wife Karen Sued Doctor For $500,000, Despite Senator's Calls For Tort Reform

Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum has advocated capping medical malpractice awards at $250,000, but in 1999, his wife sued her doctor over a back injury and asked for twice that amount

As ABC News reports, Santorum's wife, Karen, sued a Virginia-based chiropractor for half-a-million dollars for allegedly bungling a spinal adjustment.

The suit charged that in November 1996, Karen saw Dr. David Dolberg for a spinal alignment, according to an article by Roll Call on Dec. 13, 1999. The adjustment, however, was performed improperly and resulted in a herniated disk that caused her physical pain and emotional suffering, and required surgery and multiple doctors' visits, she alleged.

She sued for $500,000, despite the fact that her medical bills totaled approximately $18,800.

While the jury awarded Karen $350,000, a judge later reduced the amount to $175,000.

By the time of the lawsuit, then-Sen. Santorum had taken up the cause of tort reform, twice sponsoring or co-sponsoring bills limiting the non-economic awards for pain and suffering that a plaintiff could seek to $250,000.

A significant part of what the Santorums were concerned about at the time of the lawsuit was that Karen would not be able to help the senator's re-election campaign, as she had done in the past.

Roll Call reported on Jan. 10, 2000, that the senator had testified that his wife had "trouble walking, bending and lifting and has suffered humiliation from weight gain associated with her injury."

"We have to go out and do a lot of public things. She wants to look nice, so it's really difficult," said Santorum, according to the 1999 Roll Call piece.

Santorum also testified that it would be tough for Karen to go knocking on doors "because of her physical limitations and the poor self-image."

"She has always been intricately involved in my campaigns," Santorum said, explaining that he and his wife "knocked on 20,000 doors together" during his previous campaign.

When asked about the apparent contradiction after the verdict, Santorum told the Pittsburgh Post Gazette on Dec. 11, 1999, "The court proceedings are a personal family matter. I will not be offering any further public comments, other than that I am not a party to the suit. But I am fully supportive of my wife."

ABC News approached the senator five years later, and he further explained, "Of course I'm going to support my wife in her endeavors. That doesn't necessarily mean that I agree with everything that she does."

He added that he still believed in medical malpractice caps, but he could see raising the limit above his previous number of $250,000.

"I guess I could answer that in two ways," he said. "Number one is that I've supported caps. I've been very clear that I am not wedded at all to a $250,000 cap and I've said publicly repeatedly, and I think probably that is somewhat low, and that we need to look at what I think is a cap that is a little bit higher than that."

On the campaign trail in Iowa last fall, theDes Moines Regsiter reported that Santorum continued to push the idea that he would be a tort-reform president, even if it made him unpopular with Washington lobbyists.

"I am a big tort-reform guy. The trial lawyers association went after me in a big way in all five of my elections. They would not be a big fan of me and I would be in favor of reforming tort laws," he said.

More on Santorum's 2012 campaign:

Also on HuffPost:

 

 

Comments

[RJROW]

03:32 PM on 02/20/2012

Having allready posted once about this topic, I feel compelled to add a little more. Santorum states that his wife is her own person, and that she does things that he doesn't agree with. The problem with that comment is that it fly's in the face of the foundation of his very public and well known stance on his religious beliefs. Catholicism (Santorum's conservative view) makes the husband the dominant figure in the marriage. Remember, the most conservative followers of this church, follow a doctrine that is over 2000 years old. The fact that he even tries to sell the public on this cra- shows how little integrity the man truly has. Typical do as I say not as I do rhetric from a zealot hungry for power.

As for the lawsuit, the hypocricy speaks for itself. Many Americans have similiar stories, and they haven't sued a soul, and those that have probably didn't ask for 500,000 dollars for 18,000 dollars worth of medical expenses related to treatment of their injury. The truth is probably more like she sued and asked for such a large sum of money because she could. The premeditated thinking of using campaign issues to help further her cause. self-esteem, periceved looks, etc.. give me a break. Sounds like vanity, something their faith says is a sin.

[tin soldier]

09:14 AM on 02/20/2012

I just wonder ,how many of these self righteous posters
ahve filed their own suits for a workers comp claim or malpractice or an auto accident or even a sexual harrassment suit.

[MiMi LLawsonn]

04:29 PM on 02/19/2012

Interesting story.....I had a worker's comp claim that was wrongfully denied....due to the ERRORS of the attorneys in the case....http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-647077.....
the system does whatever it can to get by with whatever they can cheat people out of....this is what is so very wrong with government run agencies....CORRUPTION AND COVER UP IS EVERYWHERE.....something needs to be done about such as this....the company I worked for was EDS....and/was a BIG COMPANY.....

[mfrench817]

04:04 PM on 02/19/2012

This Huffington Post is so liberal it stinks. Who wouldn't sue a doctor for malpractice. It's the frivolous lawsuits that should be stopped. When a doctor damages your body, you have a right to sue them, plain and simple. A doctor caused serious spinal cord injury to my boyfriend, who barely has any balance left. He chose not to sue him, against my advice. His entire quality of life has been destroyed. What doctor shouldn't be sued for that.

[bikefolder32]

06:39 PM on 02/19/2012

Definition of frivolous: suing for more than the damage is worth. You didn't read the article. She sued for $500k. She was only truly NEEDED $175k.

What does money give someone back to quality of life? What would money do to help your boyfriend's balance issue? Above and beyond the cost of daily care they may or may not need, depending on the injury - it's just frivolous, period. Sounds like your boyfriend knew better than you what was fair.

Doctors are human beings. Sometimes they make mistakes, and sometimes despite the absolute best care, patients will still have problems. When there are cases where money can make a difference to the patient's day-to-day, the option still exists. But we HAVE to get away from this notion people like you keep perpetuating of "If my outcome isn't perfect, sue the doctor who tried to treat me."

[Alise Kaplan]

05:57 AM on 02/23/2012

as someone previously posted, her bills werer much less than the suit. what bothers me is how hypocritical santorum is. goes right up with his wife living with an abortion doctor...

[rosebud678]

02:22 PM on 02/19/2012

I just can't stand him! That lawsuit was such BS! First of all, she was probably no more than 10 pounds overweight.What about the times she went out when she was pregnant? And she has been pregnant for may months in her life! And second, she doesn't look all that great anyway! So, the public can only get so much in a lawsuit, but Mr & Mrs S get as much as they can. What a disgrace! She needs to really hurt herself so she knows how being disabled really feels! She didn't even have surgery.

[mfrench817]

04:11 PM on 02/19/2012

Rosebud, you are displaying your ignorance. You don't surgically remove a herniated disc - you get cortisone shots to shrink it. If a disc has burst, you remove it surgically and fuse the bones together, which is excruciating. I speak from experience. A herniated disc is terribly painful and any doctor that causes one should pay through the nose. And you talk about the looks of Santorum's wife?!! You sound very bitter and even jealous. I wonder what you look like - probably 100 pounds overweight.

[bikefolder32]

06:46 PM on 02/19/2012

You sound just as ignorant of medical practice yourself with that statement. Rosebud678 didn't even mention the surgical procedure. You sound like you're just trolling this thread with an axe to grind.

Cortisone shots don't physically shrink or shorten the disks - they mask the pain that's being caused, they cut down on the inflammation that's happening, but they do not "shrink" the disks. Otherwise people who take cortisone for asthma would have shrunken lungs, people taking it for knee pain would have shrunken knees.

Cortisone is a first step, because it's risky to perform ANYTHING on a disc, regardless of the procedure. People are cautioned to try non-interventional methods first. Once you perform a fusion, it puts new pressure on the other healthy discs in the spine because they're being asked to compensate for the ones that are fused. Over time, people end up needing a second procedure to fix those. It's like a game of domino's.

Please educate yourself before you start trolling people and calling out their supposed ignorance when you're not even aware of your own.

[rosebud678]

07:59 PM on 02/19/2012

I am not showing my ignorance, you misunderstood me or can't read. I said that she did not have surgery. Not, that she should have had a surgical procedure for her condition. She is not someone I would admire or envy.

[jakel95020]

09:15 AM on 02/19/2012

Screw everyone else I want my $500,000 first

[sskepticall]

12:20 PM on 02/18/2012

I learned this week that the Catholic Church is as much a cafeteria Catholic as I am.

Though the Catholic Church has rules on the books that govern contraception, I learn from Chris Matthews there is a kind of internal wink and nod going-on. The Catechism of the Church states very clearly that chemical, IUDs and condom use is EQUAL to the sin of abortion but that the church actually looks the other way on those contraceptives. REALLY?

Too bad it is isn’t the abject poverty they have seen around the world hasn’t taught them that the suffering of CHILDREN is greatly affected by the lack of access to birth control.

While they won't support or assist in the distribution of birth control methods for those nations that have poverty theChurch will still stand in the way of organizations that want to help provide it.

However, in our country where they actually have Catholics who can be counted on to TITHE every Sunday it is a very different story. To APPEASE American Catholic women the church backed off of its comments on birth control during Mass.

Madison Avenue focus groups must have certainly advised church leaders that Sundays filled with homily's (sermons for those of other religions) about Catholic Women not using unsanctioned birth control methods would have lead to women fleeing the church.

The reality is that this misogynist religion would have failed a long time ago in AMERICA if it weren't for women.

[karib57]

02:42 PM on 02/19/2012

What does this have to do with Tort reform?

[sskepticall]

07:01 PM on 02/19/2012

I was responding to someone whose message ultimately got pulled.

[The Truth Seekr]

10:17 AM on 02/22/2012

Any organization, especially a religious institution that harbored Nazis in the Vatican and arranged safe travel to Argentina for them has NO credibility in my opinion. This is why organized religion is a farce and has no business telling people how to conduct their lives, and neither does Santorum.

[sskepticall]

12:48 PM on 02/22/2012

I think that any organization can become corrupted with the wrong leadership. I also believe that how they respond to failings defines their future. The Church lost a lot of Catholics in its response and coverup and incredible failings in regards to children and
their sexual abuse. Like and major organization ITs need became paramount and they were led kicking and screaming in to revealation and punishing the priests who were inovled. Then they decided to hide the extent of it to mitigate their cost exposure.

For many Catholics the church certainly hasn't attoned for what happened and their failures.

But I think this failing is also the experience of many children in the hands of organizations where children congregate. That is the SCANDAL of our nation.

[Tara Hunkoff]

10:01 AM on 02/18/2012

Tort reform: what a crock.

Suppose I offered to pay all the medical expenses - treatment, rehab, life care, the works - plus three times your total expenses if you let me break your legs, one arm, seven fingers, and give you a concussion. Would you accept my offer?

Now, what if I didn't bother to make the offer? Suppose I just ran a red light and did all that to you? Would you be satisfied with the same payout?

If you answered "No" to the last question, I advise you not to move to Texas because that's the law here.

To top it all off, insurance rates have not dropped, nor has the number of doctors jumped unusually higher since tort reform, which voters were assured would happen under the new caps.

[MelanieMoriarty]

09:21 AM on 02/18/2012

Such hypocrisy! Beyond my comprehension.

[flow555]

08:24 AM on 02/18/2012

When I heard about this, I could not help but think of all the people who have been "harmed' in some way and for whatever reason, cannot take legal recourse.

Can you imagine if all of the vicitms of child abuse were able to sue someone and get half a million bucks? Or rape victims, or victims of other crimes.
Or what about our vets? Can you imagine if homeless vets were able to sue and say, my quality of life was harmed by my service, here's the bill.

I have no idea what kind of pain Mrs. Santorum experienced, and I admit I am probably casting some judgment about the part of her suit that refers to her discomfort at public appearences, due to her weight gain, stemming from the injuries.

However, I just feel like this guy, candidate Samtorum, wants to do away with the safety net, A net that helps people who find their way in bad situations, and cannot just sue and be made whole.

It's that whole "boot straps" notion. Pulling yourself up, in spite of circumstances. It seems to me that many of the propenents of that view, actually get some help along the way, which tey on't acknowledge. A big settlement is definitely a big boost.

[bynddrvn5]

07:41 AM on 02/18/2012

Why does tort reform, always start with a cap on settlements? If you screw up big, you should be forced to pay big.

What would be more effective is to make people pay for legal costs as well as for time wasted by frivolous lawsuits, such as all the time wasted by Orly Taitz and the Birther movement for example.

[Olethea]

08:10 AM on 02/18/2012

Exactly.

[Tara Hunkoff]

10:14 AM on 02/18/2012

We already have a perfectly good way to stop frivilous claims: they are defeated with pre-trial motions.

Lawyers who repeatedly file such claims don't last long, thanks to monetary fines called "sanctions" which judges can - and frequently do - impose straight from the bench.

Keep fooling around, and you end up losing your bar card. Lawyers don't tolerate bad apples in the barrel, unlike some professions I could name.

[Muirwoods]

11:55 AM on 02/18/2012

What world are you living in? You have to be a plaintiff's attorney. Lawyers (and Judges) tolerate bad apples just like doctors do. Neither of these professions are particularly good at self-regulation.

[bynddrvn5]

01:00 PM on 02/18/2012

Only the legal costs are covered in frivolous lawsuits, all costs should be on the table. Time is money and as such, everyone who is a target of one of these suits should be able to recoup the time they have wasted gathering paperwork and with depositions and so on.

I worked in the finance dept of a law firm so I saw some of their tricks. Normal operating procedure was to hire private detectives and to hand people a questionnaire with 600 questions, claim to lose the questionnaire, then "find" the original and compare answers.

Judges allow an absurd amount of "fishing" for information if you ask me.

[lv1155]

07:34 AM on 02/18/2012

There's nothing amazing about this for all politicians. Once they get through milking the system for themselves based on what they believe are their own unique set of circumstances, they flip the script. That is not the problem, the problem are voters who see this hypocrisy and turn around and give them their votes.

[Muirwoods]

12:13 PM on 02/18/2012

Exactly. We keep electing them.

[davidram43]

05:30 AM on 02/18/2012

Oh man...here comes Neut again...

Neut/Buchanan 2012 or Neut/Palin

[karib57]

02:47 PM on 02/19/2012

learn how to spell

[davidram43]

09:04 PM on 02/21/2012

Thanks for your feedback.

[RepsSuck]

01:48 AM on 02/18/2012

Santorum lost a free worker, so in his mind, SOMEONE HAD TO PAY! (but it wasn't "his lawsuit!) Sounds like more Republican finger pointing at others, when it should be directed at themselves! Now that he has big bucks, it is okay to sneer at others who want to get honest compensation for injuries; not take advantage of the system, like he and his wife did!

[karib57]

02:48 PM on 02/19/2012

She wasn't entitled to honest compensation for her injuries? Why not?

[rosebud678]

09:53 PM on 02/19/2012

lol Free Worker

[SensibleOne]

01:43 AM on 02/18/2012

Gee, the hypocrisy is so shocking! Not.