Are Hispanic immigrants disproportionately litigious?
 

I would guess that the answer is "yes."

South Texas, largely Hispanic, is known as an extremely litigious place. So much so, that they had a hard time getting any doctors to work down there. If you watch the news, you will see that many major suits (against big pharma and other large corporations) are brought in South Texas. Why? Because juries are very sympathetic to plaintiffs and give huge awards.

Again, it's not just directed against big national corporations. They run their local doctors out of town as well.

I'm not making this up. This article says:

The reason I've been thinking about this, is that I was sued by a Hispanic guy who could barely speak English (after a traffic accident). And an old lady in my ward is also being sued. Two years after a traffic accident. By a Hispanic lady. Trust me, I know most of the suing is likely done by whites. And esp. white lawyers.

But the South Texas issue has me thinking. Have previous immigrant groups been overly litigious? Is the South Texas thing a regional issue that has more to do with a local culture, than Hispanic immigrant culture?

Nueces Texas is nationally known for a great place to sue. Something in the newcomers' attitude that creates a sense of entitlement.

Some other good places to sue: South Mississippi, or the Delta region of Mississippi, and the rural Black Belt in Alabama (so called because of the rich soil).

Malpractice insurance rates go up when the bond market is down.

Also, juries never hear the case unless the is some evidence that the standard of care was deviated from in med-mal cases.

Tort refrom organizations are to insurance companies as Second Amendment organizations are to gun companies.

are doctors so poor in their performance in South Texas that they shouldn't be able to make half the living of other doctors? or does South Texas have it about right?

I don't know about your assertion. I know a doctor who was sued because glass was missed on a patient's scalp. he was the radiologist. the only problem was the head was not included in any of the films that were made. The plaintiffs wanted him to settle for 10,000. He decided he'd rather pay more than that to his own lawyers.

Sometimes med-mal is nothing more than extortion.

In Virginia you cannot even file a med-mal case without the affidavit of another doctor that the standard of care was breached by the person sued. That seems like a sensible reform to me.

That should be about as hard as hiring an expert witness.

Which is to say, not very hard.

I think you are wrong to say that doctors don't have integrity.

Personally, I think mandatory arbitration agreements could solve the problem. People still get money if the docs or hospitals screw up but it takes out the big trial lawyers...

I'm quite aware that some doctors lack integrity.

I think statistic say that virtually all doctors will be sued at least once in their lifetime.

I think this boggles the mind of doctors in other countries.