Many people – lawyers and non-lawyers – don’t worry about laws restricting the rights of victims of medical malpractice. Consumers tend to think that bad things happen to others and lawyers who do not do medical malpractice work are just glad that their practice isn’t being attacked.
Well, look at what is happening in Illinois. One year after restricting the rights of patients the GOP wants across-the-board tort reform.
Here is the text of the Governor’s State of the State Address.
You will note that the Governor did not call for restrictions on the right of patients to hold doctors and hospitals responsible for their negligence. This is a good sign. You can be assured that this was not missed by the doctors, hospitals and their insurers, and these special interest groups will be putting significant pressure on the Governor to get behind their efforts. And note that the Governor did say that he would be speaking with the Legislature “in a few weeks” about health care issues.
More specifically, he said this:
This news article informs us that a jury was seated in the re-trial of the federal court case mis-tried several months ago. The last trial of the case took place in Houston; this trial is in New Orleans. Here is an article about the events of the first day.
How will the actions of the New England Journal of Medicine impact the trial? That issue is dicussed in this article.
There is another trial under way in the Rio Grande Vally – this one is in state court.
Here is an interesting case out of the DC Circuit that warns us that an oral motion to amend is not appropriate in federal court and therefore it was not error to deny it.
This speech, by the General Counsel of Boeing to Boeing executives, is a fine example of a lawyer who is trying to steer his employer in an appropriate direction.
One sample: “We as the leaders of the Boeing Company get to choose what kind of culture we are going to have. And we make these choices every day by what we do and frankly what we choose not to do. But the consequences of all those choices are our collective responsibility.”
There are more of these people out there than some plaintiff’s lawyers would like to admit. Thanks to the WSJ Law Blog for letting me know about this speech.
President George W. Bush attacked “greedy trial lawyers” again Saturday, explaining that frivilous lawsuits caused millions of Americans not to have ready access to Krispy Kreme and other brands of doughnuts.
Speaking at the 114th annual National Association of Doughnut Manufacturers and Retailers Convention in Sweetwater, Texas, the President explained that 7398 counties in America did not have a Krispy Kreme store. “The only possible explanation for this travesty is stupid lawsuits against the sellers of these wonderful doughnuts. We must get greedy trial lawyers out of the kitchens making up this important industry.”
When asked to identify a single lawsuit against a doughnut manufacturer or retailer, the President wiped some jelly off the corner of his mouth and explained that he was sure that read about some of these lawsuits “on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal. Or maybe Sports Illustrated.” But, he said, “it makes no difference whether there are any lawsuits yet or not. You and I both know that they are coming. By the way, pass me one of those with the peanut crumbles on it, will ya?”
William Childs, author of the Torts Prof Blg, assembled the thoughts of several bloggers concerning the President’s comments about the lack of OBs in rural areas. He was kind enough to include my prior post on the subject.
Drake Holliday, a Legal Aid attorney in Nashville for 30 years, died February 2.
Drake was one of those people who refused to turn his back on the poor. When President Reagan cut back on legal services to the poor, Drake stuck it out and continued to help thousands and thousand of Tennesseans. He knew poverty law, and he used to help people fight back.
He was active in political campaigns for men and women who believed that the poor deserved a fair shake. He was particularly active in Bill Purcell’s political career, helping him get elected to the State House (where he later served as Majority Leader) and later as Mayor of Nashville.
Read here about the indictment the executive of the charter company that operated the bus that exploded Sept. 23 on Interstate 45 in Texas, killing 23 residents of a Bellaire nursing home who were fleeing Hurricane Rita.
If he is found guilty, what will his punishment be? Will it be the nine years that Anna got for extortion? Should it be less? Should it be more?
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has cut a punitive damage award in a products liability case. A jury determined that the defendant produced a defective product that caused the death of the occupant of it. The jury awarded, and the trial judge affirmed, a $3,000,000 punitive damage award.
The appellate court cut the punitive damage award to $471K (200% of the compensatory damage award) and summarized its reasons for doing so as follows: “an application of the Gore guideposts to the facts of this case reveals that (1) Chrysler’s misconduct does not constitute a high degree of reprehensibility, (2) the ratio of punitive to compensatory awards is unjustifiably large, and (3) a wide gap exists between the punitive damage award and comparable civil penalties. The fact of Mr. Clark’s death does not outweigh all.”
Judge Moore dissented, saying “Chrysler’s conduct was reprehensible, the ratio between the punitive and compensatory damages awards was neither breathtaking nor otherwise unreasonable given the circumstances of the case, and the punitive damages award was in line with comparable civil penalties ….”
