There are five Republican candidates attempting to win the Republican primary and face Senator McCaskill for one of Missouri's two Senate seats. At a recent debate, the two front runners argued as to who was more in favor of tort reform. In other words, they both want to be the least qualified candidate for the good of the citizens of the state of Missouri.
John Brunner, a St. Louis businessman, claims that former Missouri State Treasurer Sarah Steelman was a roadblock to tort reform measures when she was a Missouri state senator. Steelman, on the other hand, owns up to having supported a tort reform bill that sought the draconian loser pays form of tort reform.
According to Brunner, Steelman was the only Republican to filibuster against tort reform bills in 2003 and 2004. Steelman disputes Brunner's claims.
Looks to me that both Brunner and Steelman are making it easy for Missouri voters to know that they do NOT stand up for the citizens of Missouri but instead seek to take away the rights of Missourians. If either is elected to the U.S. Senate, citizens of the United States can expect the same anti justice stance.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Wednesday, May 9, 2012
Tort reform just doesn't work as advertised
Wendell Potter with the Huffington Post debunks the various so called alternatives to Obamacare, one of which is the passage of sweeping tort reform limiting justice for victims of medical malpractice. Potter does a good job illustrating that tort reform does not help a state increase it's ability to provide healthcare through an increased number of doctors, it does not lower premiums for malpractice insurance for doctors and certainly does nothing to help protect those injured by medical malpractice. Here's the section of his article that discusses tort reform:
"As for tort reform, just look at Texas, where it was ineffective in holding down medical costs and improving access to care. Lobbyists for physicians and insurers sold the idea that a big reason for medical inflation is an epidemic of multimillion dollar jury awards that have led doctors to practice defensive medicine so they won't get sued. Texas legislators in 2003 enacted a law that caps non-economic (pain and suffering) damages at $250,000 against physicians and at $750,000 against hospitals. Sponsors of the legislation promised it would attract doctors to Texas and lead to lower premiums and, consequently, to more affordable coverage.
None of that happened. Texas has actually lost ground to other states on the number of doctors per capita since tort reform was enacted. And while the cost of malpractice insurance did drop initially, there has been no evidence doctors have passed along any savings to patients. In fact, the average premium for family coverage in Texas in 2010 was $14,526 -- $655 higher than the U.S. average. And tort reform has not made a dent in bringing more Texans into coverage. Texas had the highest percentage of residents without coverage (one of every four) in 2003, and it still does."
The full article is here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/health-policy-dogs-that-w_b_1497469.html?ref=politics
"As for tort reform, just look at Texas, where it was ineffective in holding down medical costs and improving access to care. Lobbyists for physicians and insurers sold the idea that a big reason for medical inflation is an epidemic of multimillion dollar jury awards that have led doctors to practice defensive medicine so they won't get sued. Texas legislators in 2003 enacted a law that caps non-economic (pain and suffering) damages at $250,000 against physicians and at $750,000 against hospitals. Sponsors of the legislation promised it would attract doctors to Texas and lead to lower premiums and, consequently, to more affordable coverage.
None of that happened. Texas has actually lost ground to other states on the number of doctors per capita since tort reform was enacted. And while the cost of malpractice insurance did drop initially, there has been no evidence doctors have passed along any savings to patients. In fact, the average premium for family coverage in Texas in 2010 was $14,526 -- $655 higher than the U.S. average. And tort reform has not made a dent in bringing more Texans into coverage. Texas had the highest percentage of residents without coverage (one of every four) in 2003, and it still does."
The full article is here - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendell-potter/health-policy-dogs-that-w_b_1497469.html?ref=politics
Saturday, May 5, 2012
New study confirms that passage of tort reform does not attract more doctors
Like in many states (including my home state of Mississippi), tort reformers claim that physicians were abandoning the state in droves because of the lack of tort reform. They used this argument to scare the public and politicians into passing tort reform that hurts, not helps, 99% of their constituents. In fact, at the time that Mississippi's doctors were allegedly fleeing our "jackpot justice" state, there were newspaper articles in other states claiming that the doctors in those states were also fleeing .... To Mississippi. Apparently, Mississippi missed out on a major source of revenue by not adding a state border crossing tax on any vehicle containing a physician.
After tort reform is unfortunately passed in these states, the tort reformers then come back later to claim that doctors are returning en masse to the point that there are doctors on every street corner.
A recent study performed by David A. Hyman with the University of Illinois College of Law, Charles Silver with the University of Texas at Austin Law School and Bernard S. Black with the Northwestern University School of Law debunks the claims of tort reformers by studying the medical community in Texas both before and after their ill fated passage of tort reform in 2003.
Their study found no evidence to support either of the claims of tort reformers. As they stated, "physician supply was not stunted prior to reform". It also did not "measurably improve after reform" was enacted. The authors even studied the differences between low risk types of medicine (i.e. family physicians, etc.) and high risk specialties (ob gyn, neurosurgery, emergency room). The study found that tort reform did not increase the number of doctors even in these high risk practices.
The full study can be found here - ssrn.com/abstract=2047433
So, once again, tort reformers are shown to use factually baseless scare tactics to pass laws that protect no one but profit only the few.
After tort reform is unfortunately passed in these states, the tort reformers then come back later to claim that doctors are returning en masse to the point that there are doctors on every street corner.
A recent study performed by David A. Hyman with the University of Illinois College of Law, Charles Silver with the University of Texas at Austin Law School and Bernard S. Black with the Northwestern University School of Law debunks the claims of tort reformers by studying the medical community in Texas both before and after their ill fated passage of tort reform in 2003.
Their study found no evidence to support either of the claims of tort reformers. As they stated, "physician supply was not stunted prior to reform". It also did not "measurably improve after reform" was enacted. The authors even studied the differences between low risk types of medicine (i.e. family physicians, etc.) and high risk specialties (ob gyn, neurosurgery, emergency room). The study found that tort reform did not increase the number of doctors even in these high risk practices.
The full study can be found here - ssrn.com/abstract=2047433
So, once again, tort reformers are shown to use factually baseless scare tactics to pass laws that protect no one but profit only the few.
Saturday, April 21, 2012
Mississippi judge says NO to tort reform
Yesterday, a Circuit Court judge in northern Mississippi said "No" to one of the most dangerous forms of tort reform ever enacted in Mississippi. Several years ago, as a result of a special session of the Mississippi legislature, section 11-1-60 of the Mississippi Code was passed. This statute limited non-economic damage awards to $1 million dollars. A previous statute had limited the same type of awards in medical malpractice cases to $500,000. Apparently, your life is worth less if you are killed by a doctor rather than an 18 wheeler. But I digress.
The issue of whether the legislature's capping of damages unconstitutionally invades the province of the judicial branch has been pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court for some time. Thus far, the Mississippi Supreme Court has been able to avoid ruling directly on this issue, despite even having the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals directly certify the issue of the damage caps' constitutionality to the Mississippi Supreme Court for resolution, as Federal appellate courts are allowed to do regarding questions of state law.
Tired of waiting on the Supreme Court to finally take up this issue, which was causing a significant delay in a case pending before him that had already resulted in a verdict larger than the $1 million dollar cap, Judge Charles E. Webster ruled that section 11-1-60 is unconstitutional in that it violates Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the Mississippi Constitution, which provide that the powers of government will be separated into the three branches of executive, legislature and judicial and that no encroachment by one branch will be allowed on the powers given to any other branch.
Judge Webster correctly found that allowing the legislative branch to set the maximum recovery in a civil case would give the legislative branch the ability to effectively do away with jury trials since, in theory, the legislative branch could set the maximum recovery at only a $1. While unlikely to happen, it is this ability to encroach on the judicial branch that renders section 11-1-60 unconstitutional. This would clearly violate Article III, Section 31 that made the right to a trial by jury inviolate in Mississippi.
Judge Webster did a brave and correct act when he made this ruling. Too many judges would have kept their head down and simply waited for the Supreme Court to rule. It's too bad that there are not more judges of the caliber of Judge Webster aroun the nation willing and able to rationally and logically say "No" to tort reform. Good job, Judge Webster.
The issue of whether the legislature's capping of damages unconstitutionally invades the province of the judicial branch has been pending before the Mississippi Supreme Court for some time. Thus far, the Mississippi Supreme Court has been able to avoid ruling directly on this issue, despite even having the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals directly certify the issue of the damage caps' constitutionality to the Mississippi Supreme Court for resolution, as Federal appellate courts are allowed to do regarding questions of state law.
Tired of waiting on the Supreme Court to finally take up this issue, which was causing a significant delay in a case pending before him that had already resulted in a verdict larger than the $1 million dollar cap, Judge Charles E. Webster ruled that section 11-1-60 is unconstitutional in that it violates Article I, Sections 1 and 2 of the Mississippi Constitution, which provide that the powers of government will be separated into the three branches of executive, legislature and judicial and that no encroachment by one branch will be allowed on the powers given to any other branch.
Judge Webster correctly found that allowing the legislative branch to set the maximum recovery in a civil case would give the legislative branch the ability to effectively do away with jury trials since, in theory, the legislative branch could set the maximum recovery at only a $1. While unlikely to happen, it is this ability to encroach on the judicial branch that renders section 11-1-60 unconstitutional. This would clearly violate Article III, Section 31 that made the right to a trial by jury inviolate in Mississippi.
Judge Webster did a brave and correct act when he made this ruling. Too many judges would have kept their head down and simply waited for the Supreme Court to rule. It's too bad that there are not more judges of the caliber of Judge Webster aroun the nation willing and able to rationally and logically say "No" to tort reform. Good job, Judge Webster.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Republicans trying to limit non-economic damage claims to $250,000 max!
Republican in the U.S. House of Representatives are pushing a tort reform bill that would limit non-economic damages to $250,000, put a limit on what attorneys can charge via contingency fees and restrict punitive damages.
This bill, if passed, would run most attorneys that represent plaintiffs right out of business. The threat of actually being brought to justice in a court room is the only incentive most corporate defendants and insurance companies have to fairly evaluate and pay claims. This bill, if passed, would eliminate that incentive.
It is hard enough to make it as a trial lawyer as it is. Forget the damaging, demeaning misconceptions assigned to the term "trial lawyer". Its also hard just due to the economics of what a trial lawyer must do to succeed finanically. First, trial lawyers that work on contingency fees (i.e. most trial lawyers) only get paid if they win or settle. The only way they settle is if the insurance company or corporate defendant thinks there is a chance the trial lawyer and his injured client will receive more at trial. If the bill being pushed by House Republicans is passed, the chance that a trial lawyer could get more at trial for his client is significantly diminished. Add on top of that the limitation on what the trial lawyer can charge to financially risk his time and money on a case that may or may not pay off and you've really got a disaster for trial lawyers.
Why does that matter? Because if there are no trial lawyers, there is no one to get you justice (or even a partially fair result) if you or a loved one are injured in a car wreck or as a result of malpractice.
What's their real goal? Ask proponents of tort reform and they will spit out some boilerplate answer about eliminating frivolous lawsuits. But caps on damage awards makes no sense with that goal. Why not punish those that file frivolous lawsuits? Oh, wait, there's already a rule that does that. Not to mention that filing frivolous lawsuits (or just longshot lawsuits that have some merit) is the quickest way to go broke as a trial lawyer.
Their real goal is not to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Its to limit the compensation that can be provided injured, deserving victims in lawsuits with merit. They don't want to stop frivolous lawsuits. They really don't want to pay for their horrendous actions, plain and simple. But the insurance companies and the corporate defendants count on the masses being ignorant and falling for their meritless rationale that they are stopping frivolous lawsuits and not peering behind the curtain to see the real motivation behind their proposed laws.
Don't be ignorant. And don't let your congressman and senators think you are ignorant either. Call them, write them, e-mail them. Let them know that you (and your vote) will not support those that try to take away your rights and the rights of everyone you hold dear! The alternative is just too costly for all or any of us to bear.
This bill, if passed, would run most attorneys that represent plaintiffs right out of business. The threat of actually being brought to justice in a court room is the only incentive most corporate defendants and insurance companies have to fairly evaluate and pay claims. This bill, if passed, would eliminate that incentive.
It is hard enough to make it as a trial lawyer as it is. Forget the damaging, demeaning misconceptions assigned to the term "trial lawyer". Its also hard just due to the economics of what a trial lawyer must do to succeed finanically. First, trial lawyers that work on contingency fees (i.e. most trial lawyers) only get paid if they win or settle. The only way they settle is if the insurance company or corporate defendant thinks there is a chance the trial lawyer and his injured client will receive more at trial. If the bill being pushed by House Republicans is passed, the chance that a trial lawyer could get more at trial for his client is significantly diminished. Add on top of that the limitation on what the trial lawyer can charge to financially risk his time and money on a case that may or may not pay off and you've really got a disaster for trial lawyers.
Why does that matter? Because if there are no trial lawyers, there is no one to get you justice (or even a partially fair result) if you or a loved one are injured in a car wreck or as a result of malpractice.
What's their real goal? Ask proponents of tort reform and they will spit out some boilerplate answer about eliminating frivolous lawsuits. But caps on damage awards makes no sense with that goal. Why not punish those that file frivolous lawsuits? Oh, wait, there's already a rule that does that. Not to mention that filing frivolous lawsuits (or just longshot lawsuits that have some merit) is the quickest way to go broke as a trial lawyer.
Their real goal is not to eliminate frivolous lawsuits. Its to limit the compensation that can be provided injured, deserving victims in lawsuits with merit. They don't want to stop frivolous lawsuits. They really don't want to pay for their horrendous actions, plain and simple. But the insurance companies and the corporate defendants count on the masses being ignorant and falling for their meritless rationale that they are stopping frivolous lawsuits and not peering behind the curtain to see the real motivation behind their proposed laws.
Don't be ignorant. And don't let your congressman and senators think you are ignorant either. Call them, write them, e-mail them. Let them know that you (and your vote) will not support those that try to take away your rights and the rights of everyone you hold dear! The alternative is just too costly for all or any of us to bear.
Monday, April 16, 2012
Tennessee Says Yes to Justice and NO to Tort Reform
The Senate Judiciary Committee of the Tennessee legislature voted to reject a bill that would have severely curtailed plaintiffs in Tennessee's ability to obtain punitive damages.
If SB2637 (penned by Republican Senator Brian Kelsey (House version by Republican Rep. Vance Dennis)) had passed, Tennessee would have held employers responsible for punitive damages only if (a) the reckless act was committed by someone employed in a management capacity; (b) the employer recklessly hired, retained, supervised or trained the reckless employee; or (c) the employer authorized, ratified or approved the reckless act or omission with knowledge or conscious disregard for the loss or injury.
So, plaintiffs would have received justice ... virtually never.
The Bill defined "someone employed in a management capacity" as a management-level employee with the stature and authority to set policy and exercise control, discretion, and independent judgment over a significant scope of the employer's business and where the alleged act or omission warranting punitive damages by such management-level employee was directly within the scope of such authority.
Admittedly, punitive damage awards are very rare. But the threat of punitive damages encourages more responsible behavior that ultimately protects people.
The defeat of this bill has been described as a major victory for Tennessee consumers. Way to go Tennessee!
If SB2637 (penned by Republican Senator Brian Kelsey (House version by Republican Rep. Vance Dennis)) had passed, Tennessee would have held employers responsible for punitive damages only if (a) the reckless act was committed by someone employed in a management capacity; (b) the employer recklessly hired, retained, supervised or trained the reckless employee; or (c) the employer authorized, ratified or approved the reckless act or omission with knowledge or conscious disregard for the loss or injury.
So, plaintiffs would have received justice ... virtually never.
The Bill defined "someone employed in a management capacity" as a management-level employee with the stature and authority to set policy and exercise control, discretion, and independent judgment over a significant scope of the employer's business and where the alleged act or omission warranting punitive damages by such management-level employee was directly within the scope of such authority.
Admittedly, punitive damage awards are very rare. But the threat of punitive damages encourages more responsible behavior that ultimately protects people.
The defeat of this bill has been described as a major victory for Tennessee consumers. Way to go Tennessee!
Monday, April 9, 2012
Excellent article about the lies of tort reform
Tort reformists often misconstrue and even lie in order to scare the masses to support tort reform whose only purpose is to line the pockets of insurance companies and corporations, i.e. the 1%. This article at the pop tort.com summarizes an academic study written by Cornell Law School professor Theodore Eisenberg? Click here for the excellent summary debunking many of the myths that tort reformists spew, particularly about punitive damages, medical malpractice and products liability - www.thepoptort.com/2012/04/tackling-the-lies-of-tort-reform.html
Happy reading.
Happy reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
