AAJ Statement of JPMorgan Removing Forced Arbirtration Clauses from Credit Card Contracts

Today, JPMorgan Chase & Co., the biggest credit card lender, will remove clauses from its contracts that force consumers into arbitration. Numerous reports and studies have shown these forced arbitrations are largely stacked against consumers.

The following is a statement from American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone:

“JP Morgan’s decision is a win for consumers, who previously had no recourse because of rigged forced arbitration proceedings. Unfortunately, other lenders and corporations outside the financial sector still insist on forcing their employees or customers into one-sided arbitrations to escape accountability. Congress must act and pass the Arbitration Fairness Act to prohibit this abusive practice and give Americans a real opportunity to receive justice when facing corporate wrongdoers.”

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

AAJ Calls on Congress to Restore Americans' Basic Legal Protections

Bill introduced in U.S. House today – “Open Access to Courts Act of 2009” – will restore standards required to file court cases back to decades-long precedent

Washington, DC—A bill introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives today will restore standards required to file court cases and strengthen Americans’ basic legal protections. The “Open Access to Courts Act of 2009,” introduced by Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-MI), will address recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions – Bell Atlantic v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009) – which irrationally raised the bar for Americans seeking justice in employment, discrimination, and other civil cases.

Since 1938, individuals and businesses could file suit by submitting a short and plain statement, called a complaint, which described the facts of the case. In Twombly and Iqbal, the Supreme Court created a new interpretation of these rules. With these vague and subjective legal pleading standards, cases are now being dismissed even before the plaintiff can obtain evidence that would confirm the allegations, a process known as discovery. This effectively requires people to know more information than they possibly could have access to.

Since many cases are proven because of documents – such as personnel files and internal company memos – uncovered in discovery, these new standards allow negligent corporations to escape accountability while weakening Americans’ basic legal protections.

“Without this bill, access to justice will be denied before people even reach the starting line,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. “Congress must act to ensure meritorious cases can move forward so wrongdoers won’t escape accountability.”

A bill sponsored by Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) has already been introduced in the U.S. Senate (S. 1504) to return these pleading standards to their prior precedent – established in 1957 by the Supreme Court in Conley v. Gibson.

A wide range of groups support the effort to restore legal standards, including: Alliance for Justice, American Antitrust Institute, American Civil Liberties Union, The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Center for Justice & Democracy, Christian Trial Lawyer’s Association, Committee to Support the Antitrust Laws, Community Catalyst, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, Earthjustice, Environment America, Essential Information, The Impact Fund, La Raza Centro Legal, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, National Association of Consumer Advocates, National Association of Shareholder and Consumer Attorneys, National Consumer Law Center, National Consumers League, National Council of La Raza, National Crime Victims Bar Association, National Employment Lawyers Association, National Senior Citizens Law Center, National Whistleblowers Center, National Women’s Law Center, Neighborhood Economic Development Advocacy Project, Public Citizen, Sierra Club, Southern Poverty Law Center, Taxpayers Against Fraud, and U.S. Public Interest Research Group.

###

As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others—even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org/newsroom.

Congressman Bruce Braley Stands up for Patients in America

New Paper Debunks Malpractice Myths

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi
202-965-3500 x369
AAJ Press Room

New Paper Debunks Malpractice Myths

Washington, DC—As enemies of health care reform spread lies and untruths about medical negligence, a new white paper tackles the issue head-on, debunking the most common myths with sound science and research while refuting the hyperbole and empty rhetoric.

Five Myths About Medical Negligence, one in a series of reports from the American Association for Justice on this issue, examines the errors and faults behind the most commonly used talking points of health care reform opponents.

• Myth #1: There are too many “frivolous” malpractice lawsuits.

Fact: There’s an epidemic of medical negligence, not lawsuits. Only one in eight people injured by medical negligence ever file suit. Civil filings have declined eight percent over the last decade, and are less than one percent of the whole civil docket. A 2006 Harvard study found that 97 percent of claims were meritorious, stating, “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.”

• Myth #2: Malpractice claims drive up health care costs.

Fact: According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the total spent defending claims and compensating victims of medical negligence was just 0.3% of health care costs, and the Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have made similar findings.

• Myth #3: Doctors are fleeing.

Fact: Then where are they going? According to the American Medical Association’s own data, the number of practicing physicians in the United States has been growing steadily for decades. Not only are there more doctors, but the number of doctors is increasing faster than population growth. Despite the cries of physicians fleeing multiple states, the number of physicians increased in every state, and only four states saw growth slower than population growth; these four states all have medical malpractice caps.

• Myth #4: Malpractice claims drive up doctors’ premiums.

Fact: Empirical research has found that there is little correlation between malpractice payouts and malpractice premiums paid by doctors. A study of the leading medical malpractice insurance companies’ financial statements by former Missouri Insurance Commissioner Jay Angoff found that these insurers artificially raised doctors’ premiums and misled the public about the nature of medical negligence claims. A previous AAJ report on malpractice insurers found they had earnings higher than 99% of Fortune 500 companies.

• Myth #5: Tort reform will lower insurance rates.

Fact: Tort reforms are passed under the guise that they will lower physicians’ liability premiums. This does not happen. While insurers do pay out less money when damages awards are capped, they do not pass the savings along to doctors by lowering premiums. Even the most ardent tort reformers have been caught stating that tort reform will have no effect on insurance rates.

“All the facts and evidence show that tort law changes will do practically nothing to lower costs or cover the uninsured,” said AAJ President Anthony Tarricone. “It’s no wonder the tort reformers, insurance lobby, and other corporate front groups have to gin up lies and phony stats, since no legitimate data or research supports their claims. Our focus should be on reducing the 98,000 deaths by medical error that occurs every year, not limiting patients’ legal rights.”

As part of its ongoing series on the topic, AAJ earlier released Medical Negligence: A Primer for the Nation’s Health Care Debate, The Truth About “Defensive Medicine,” and The Insurance Hoax: How Doctors and Patients Pay for the Huge Earnings of Medical Malpractice Insurers. These can be located at www.justice.org/medicalnegligence. Five Myths About Medical Negligence can be found directly at: www.justice.org/clips/Five Myths About Medical Negligence.pdf.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

Tort Law Changes Won't Reduce Malpractice Premiums

For Immediate Release: October 29, 2009

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi, American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x369
AAJ Press Room

New Data Shows Tort Law Changes Won’t Reduce Malpractice Premiums

Insurance companies lobby to limit patients’ legal rights,
yet never pass savings onto physicians or consumers

Washington, DC—Tort law changes have failed to reduce malpractice insurance costs, and states with caps on damages often have higher premiums than states without caps, according to an analysis of just-released liability data.

While insurance companies have claimed tort law changes would lower physicians’ premiums, this has not been the case. There is either no difference in rates between cap and non-cap states, or cap states actually have higher premiums – underscoring how a state’s liability laws play no role in lowering insurance or overall health care costs. Doctors’ premiums rise and fall based on the insurance cycle, totally unrelated to the legal system.

The new data shows:
• Average liability premiums across internists, general surgeons and OB/Gyns are nearly identical for states with or without caps.
• Average liability premiums for OB/Gyns are nearly identical for states with or without caps.
• Average liability premiums for general surgeons are 9.3% higher in states with caps.
• Average liability premiums for internal medicine are 9.9% higher in states with caps.

“Malpractice insurers promised tort law changes would lower premiums, yet it has not happened,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. “While these companies make record profits off the backs of doctors, patients injured through no fault of their own are often unable to seek recourse. This information comes at an important time in the health care debate – providing clear evidence that tort law changes won’t decrease costs.”

The above statistics were derived from data released this month in Medical Liability Monitor. More information and charts on this data can be found at www.justice.org/clips/premiums2009.pdf.

As part of its ongoing series on the topic, AAJ earlier released Medical Negligence: A Primer for the Nation’s Health Care Debate, The Truth About “Defensive Medicine,” and The Insurance Hoax: How Doctors and Patients Pay for the Huge Earnings of Medical Malpractice Insurers, all of which can be located at www.justice.org/medicalnegligence.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

True Stories of Corporations that Knew their Products were Dangerous-- Even Deadly

The American Association for Justice released an incredible report yesterday--- They all Knew and Failed to.... The report details how lawsuits keep us safe.

Listed in the report are numerous examples of companies that knowingly and willfully released products that harmed or even killed consumers. It describes the case of a company that discovers rat droppings are contaminating its food products but insists that the products be recooked, boxed up, and sold anyway. Then there is the example of a company that discovers its bulletproof vests are defective but still sells them to law enforcement agencies and the military-- putting those that protect us at grave risk.

Toys to Toxic Waste

For Immediate Release: October 28, 2009

Contact: Jennifer Fuson
202-965-3500 x369
AAJ Press Room

Toys to Toxic Waste: New Report Details Corporations that Skirt Responsibility and Shun Consumer Safety to Save Money

Washington, DC—As the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform holds their annual summit – an event dedicated to championing corporate misconduct and evading accountability – a new report released today details true stories of corporations that knew their products were dangerous, yet failed to act and protect consumers.

“They Knew and Failed To” details numerous examples of medical devices, prescription drugs, and other consumer products that remained on the market after critical safety concerns had been raised within the company, while using all means necessary to avoid being held accountable for their misconduct.

In one example, police officer Tony Zeppetella of Oceanside, Calif. had paid $313 to “upgrade” his standard bullet proof vest. The Ultima body armor Zeppetella had purchased was widely used by law enforcement, military personnel, and even worn by the President and Mrs. Bush. Unfortunately, Zeppetella was shot and killed on a routine traffic stop in June 2003, when a bullet penetrated his vest.

Second Chance, the manufacturer, had known as early as 1998 that heat and sunlight caused the material to degrade, making the vests penetrable. Internal corporate memos from 2001 revealed an executive at the company had recommended notifying customers about the products’ defect, saying, “Lives and our credibility are at stake.” It was not until September 2003 that the company eventually recalled 130,000 vests, three months after Zeppetella was shot. The company had known for five years there were problems with their vests, but failed to notify consumers, putting law enforcement and service members’ lives at risk. Several years later, Second Chance recalled another 98,000 vests.

“While most businesses act in good faith to serve their customers and communities, unfortunately some corporations recklessly put lives at risk for the sake of profit,” said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. “While front groups like the Chamber stage events practically celebrating corporate misconduct, this new report convincingly illustrates the importance of holding wrongdoers accountable.”

The full report, “They Knew and Failed To,” is available at: www.justice.org/clips/TheyKnewAndFailedTo.pdf.

###
As the world's largest trial bar, the American Association for Justice (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) works to make sure people have a fair chance to receive justice through the legal system when they are injured by the negligence or misconduct of others--even when it means taking on the most powerful corporations. Visit http://www.justice.org.

Mom amputee after medical malpractice

From CNN:

Six years ago, shortly after arriving at the ER at Memorial Hospital West in the Fort Lauderdale suburb of Pembroke Pines, Strong says she told a nurse she thought she was having a problem with a kidney stone. She had had difficulties with stones.

But miscommunication between doctors and different diagnoses eventually led to her being discharged without having the kidney stone treated. That led to a rare tissue inflammation called "the line of demarcation," seen as a darkening of the skin in the extremities that slowly creeps upward.

"My fingers were turning black and curling. They looked charred," she said. "My toes were turning blue and black. It wouldn't stop. I had no idea what was happening to me," she recalled.

Strong said she was told she had no choice but to have her arms and legs amputated to save her life.

AAJ Women's Caucus Reception

AAJ announces their Women's Caucus Networking Reception on Thursday, October 29th in Washington DC.

Hot Coffee the movie

Join us tomorrow night at the LandMark Theaters in Midtown for a screening of the documentary Hot Coffee. Contact Rebecca DeHart for more information.

From the website www.hotcoffeethemovie.com:


What’s the most famous legal case in American history?

Marbury v. Madison, Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade? Ask anyone in the U.S. or abroad and they will likely tell you about a woman who spilled coffee on herself and collected millions of dollars. The McDonald’s coffee case became the poster child for frivolous lawsuits in America. Jerry Seinfeld did an entire episode where Kramer sued Java World after spilling a café latté on himself while trying to get a seat in a movie theater. Jay Leno, David Letterman and other comedians have made the case the punch line for jokes; there are even the “Stella Awards” (for Stella Liebeck), given each year to the most outrageous and frivolous lawsuits. But if this case was so ridiculous, why did a jury award $2.9 million dollars to this 79 year old after a seven-day trial in 1994? Did McDonald’s not have good lawyers? And how did this case gain such notoriety and remain in the minds of so many people after so many years?

The McDonald’s coffee case has been routinely cited by the media as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of the legal system. In this documentary, you will learn what really happened to Stella, meet her grandson, who was driving the car, and hear from her doctor, the lawyers, McDonald’s quality assurance manager, and the jurors. Was the media’s portrayal of this case fair or was there an agenda by tort-reform groups to create a public perception that lawsuits were out of control. How did it become the poster child for tort reform, what is tort reform and how does it affect everyday Americans?

We will show how this case became so popular in the media (along with other examples of “frivolous” lawsuits), who funded the effort and to what end. We will interview political scientists, law school professors and consumer advocates who have spent years analyzing media coverage of the tort system and who controlled the message. We will show how the media was used and continues to be used for a political agenda to prevent access to the court system and immunize corporations from civil liability. We will educate the audience about caps on the amount of money that victims can receive in court in most states, how the federal government has enacted laws to prevent people from their day in court, and how the small print on credit card and real estate contracts, for example, prevent people from being able to get into the court system, denying access to justice. We will explore judicial races in states where tort reform measures have passed and then were later found unconstitutional by the State’s Supreme Courts. In many of these states there were major public relations campaigns established by tort reform groups to unseat pro-consumer justices and replace them with pro-business justices. We will interview representatives from the American Tort Reform Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (who even recently started a new website called “Faces of Lawsuit Abuse”) and even Phillip Morris, to find out what their involvement was in keeping this story alive and the motivations behind it.

We will let the audience decide who really profited from spilling hot coffee.