Physicians and their liability insurers cite the unscrupulous behavior of trial lawyers and demand legislative changes that would make it harder for patients to sue, win, and secure large amounts of compensation. The plaintiffs' bar, and some consumer rights organizations, counter that these are unacceptable abridgments of access to justice; they emphasize the prevalence and debilitating consequences of medical error, and argue that the behavior of liability insurance executives, not lawyers, drives premiums higher. Both sides habitually back their positions with data that are selective and, in some instances, brazenly manipulated. Consider one possible explanation for why, as Nepps2 observes, 11 of the 17 states the American Medical Association designated as “in crisis” did not have caps: the absence of a cap independently influenced the designation. Pity the legislator who must sift through such radically polarized and confusing claims. The easiest course is to accept the mantra of one side, and many do just that.