{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027408637873754152, 'fraction_numerical': 0.009966777408637873, 'mean_word_length': 4.355555555555555, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tort reform is needed.

Picture the scene now: mother and pediatrician, the child in their arms, rush down the street into the emergency room. Fortunately, the boy survived with no permanent damage. The suit was setfled in a manner considered reasonable by the insurance industry: the pharmacist paid $5,000, the oral surgeon paid $5,000, and the general dentist paid $5,000. The same oral surgeon later lost a case involving the second largest judgment in Colorado history over the death of a woman in his chair. He was not indicted on a criminal charge. The decision in the case of the woman was not a reasonable one in the tort system from the point of view of insurers. Damages were assessed, not on the basis of the value of the woman's life, but on the cost to her family of providing long-term health care to a retarded child who was living at home. From the insurer's point of view, this judgment was unrelated to the case; the judgment is based on the value of the woman's life in providing services to the child. As seen by the oral surgeon's liability carrier, there has been one good judgment and one bad one in Coloradoand two other serious claims against the oral surgeon are still pending.