Tort reform was seen as necessary because during the sixties and seventies it was believed that juries were too generous in compensating individuals for harm caused by a third person or entity. We have so many tools and equipment and consume so many products that perhaps it not possible to prevent all harm. Doctors found themselves sued for negligence in providing services. Doctor practice medicine and medicine is an ART and profession in which the knowledge learned in the course of the schooling must be used in conjunction with discretion and experience. Thus the standard of care, the duty to be imposed, must be determined and accepted before a person is entitled to compensation. In the chapter on the CAPS on damages chapter it was fairly clear that the doctor did not appear to appreciate and thus did not properly treat the mother with twin embryos. While it seems impossible that a doctor in the business of prenatal care would miss what is presented as a known and highly likely risk, this type of malpractice and other similar actions is all too common. What do you think about the "Cap on Damages?" What about the difference between an injury that we can confirm medically and one that we have to depend on the interpretation of the injured party, which are known as "Soft Tissue" injuries. Surely Doctor's and business must be concerned that person will intentionally over state their medical issues to gain a larger settlement. Should the policing of these, arguably, questionable claims be left solely to the insurance company that is compensated by collecting premiums from its insured or should the elected official heed the call and pass legislation to assist the businesses, reducing or taking away the "bulls eye" off of businesses. This could and apparently has made certain states more business friendly and with this designation, jobs and other positive economic results return to the state willing to make legislative changes that protect businesses.