Articles Posted in Miscellaneous

A recent poll indicates that many Americans think that they are being “overtreated” by their doctors.

An article describing the poll results says that “[n]early three-quarters (72%) of U.S. adults think that patients who have medical conditions experience problems because of being overtreated (i.e., getting too many treatments or getting more aggressive treatment than is appropriate). In light of these concerns by the public, it’s not surprising to learn that half (50%) of all adults are somewhat or very concerned, personally, about being overtreated when they are sick or in need of medical care.”

One thing particularly troubling about this poll: 53% of adults think that one reason for the overtreat is because of concerns about malpractice suits. The propaganda is working. This is what can happen when you have the ability to spend millions and millions of dollars over thirty years to influence public opinion.

Today I am in Memphis to participate in the evaluations of our appellate judges. A couple years ago Lt. Gov. John S. Wilder appointed me to the Judicial Evaluation Commission. The Commission has the responsibility of evaluating judges and composing a summary statement about each judge for publication in newspapers before the upcoming retention election. Data is collected from lawyers who appear before the judges and other judges.

Obviously, the judges take this process very seriously. So do I. We are very fortunate to have a fine judiciary in this State, but appellate judges are not elected and face only a retention ballot and therefore I think it is very appropriate for judges to face an evaluation process. The key, of course, is trying to make the evaluation process meaningful and fair. We admittedly struggle with some issues – how do you define a “good” opinion – but I think the process is working and will continue to improve.

We have six days of interviews scheduled with judges across the state in the next couple months and then some additional dates set aside for discussion. We did a “practice” or “interim” session a year or so ago and it was taxing but interesting. There are a lot of judges and a lot of information.

Federal tort trials are dropping like President Bush’s approval rating. From fiscal year 1985 through 2003 the number of federal tort trials dropped 79%, from 3600 to less than 800. Only 2% of all cases in that time period went to trial.

There were less than 100 products liability trials in federal courts in 2003.

Read the Department of Justice’s press release about the study here. If you want to read the entire report click here.

Anna Ayala, the woman who claimed that she found a finger in a bowl of Wendy’s Chili, has plead guilty to filing a false claim and attempted grand theft. Her husband has also plead guilty for his part in the scheme.

The finger turned out to be that of a co-worker of her husband; it was lost in an industrial accident.

She is facing 10 years in the slammer. He is facing 13 years.

Those of you who read the Tennessee Tort Law Letter know that I depise Tennessee’s limitations on the liability of governmental entities. I think a limb or life of a person should be worth the same regardless of whether the tortfeasor is a person, an entity, or a governmental entity.

Over the years I have been particularly frustrated with how governmental entities, protected by a damage cap, negotiate settlements. This will be no new news to those of you who represent plaintiffs, but it seems that these entities always want “to save a little.” It drives me crazy that a case worth X but subject to a cap of 1/2 X is difficult to settle at 1/2 X. My frustration with this mindset has often caused me to lash out out governmental entities and their lawyers.

Well, we have recently been involved in two cases where the response of the governmental entities and their lawyers was very different. In one, the entity offered the cap before suit was filed. To be sure, the case was worth 10 times the cap, but City stepped up to the plate, did the right thing, and resolved the case.

But not really. Forseeability in tort law is a complicated concept, but one thing is undeniably true: for a duty to arise or legal cause to exist one need not be able to (or actually) foresee the precise type of harm that resulted. Instead, one only need be able to foresee that the risk of harm would arise. A shopping center defendant sued for negligent security in its parking lot cannot (successfully) say “well, I knew there has been and would be car thefts and car break-ins in our lot, but it never crossed my mind that someone would be raped there.”

The Bush Administration is now claiming that the government’s slow response is because it had no idea that the devestation would be so bad.

Well, read this release from the National Weather Service from Sunday, August 28, 2005:

Read here for an analysis of the impact of the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist.

I know that you are going to contribute to a Katrina relief fund – that is the type of person who reads this blog – but I urge those of you who are lawyers to do so through Trial Lawyers Care, an ATLA affilliated organization. Go here to help.

Trial lawyers do care, and one way to demonstrate that to people who don’t think so is to show our generosity collectively. Trial Lawyers Care gave tens of millions of dollars of free legal services to 9-11 victims; the people along the Gulf Coast are now in need.

Our hearts go out to those we know and those we don’t in our sister states to the south. I cannot imagine what those folks – and their families across the nation – are going through right now.

No substantive post today.

OK – so it is a recycled joke. Most of them are.

How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a light bulb? Ten

1. One to deny that a light bulb needs to be changed;