Legislative Watch Day 2

Today the House and Senate set the schedule for the first 4 weeks of the Legislative Session. The Legislature will be in session through Thursday of this week (Day 4) and then will take off this Friday.


The Assembly will technically be out of session next week but, following the King Holiday on Monday, will spend Tuesday through Friday in budget hearings (listen for the gnashing of teeth under the Gold Dome that week). The Legislature will return to session January 25th through the 28th (Day 8) but will take off Friday, January 29th. They then will be in session the entire week of February 1 through February 5 (Day 13) and will return on Monday, February 8th for Day 14.

At some point between now and February 8th, they will adopt a resolution setting the schedule beyond that date.

Tomorrow, Governor Perdue will deliver his final State of the State address to a joint session of the House and Senate. Look for heavy emphasis on the budget problems, transportation and water issues.

Legislative Watch 2010 Day 1

DATE January 11, 2010—Day 1


Today’s Top News:


Today was the first day of the 2010 legislative session. As it is the second year of the two-year term, all bills that progressed to either the House or Senate Rules Committee by the end of last session were automatically returned to their committee of origin.

The top news for this day is that Representative David Ralston (R-Blue Ridge) was elected Speaker of the House of Representatives to replace former Speaker Glenn Richardson who resigned amidst scandal last month.

Tomorrow morning, the Chamber of Commerce will hold its annual “Eggs & Issues” legislative breakfast. That meeting is where new, so-called ‘pro-business’ legislative initiatives historically have been announced

Governor Perdue delivers his State of the State address and his annual budget address this Wednesday.

In Georgia, Middle Ground for Victims of Medical Wrongdoing?

How many hoops should you have to jump through to get justice? It's a fair question that many people struggle with. Yesterday, the CEO of a Georgia medical services company suggested - in an opinion piece submitted to a GA newspaper - that to be sure that Georgians who have been harmed by negligent medical care are worthy of justice we should subject them to one more hoop. Not coincidentally, it's a hoop that benefits only medical professionals and insurance companies – the only two interest groups that profit when injured patients are prevented from securing justice.

What the author of the opinion has proposed is that, instead of allowing victims of medical malpractice the same Constitutional Right to Trial by Jury enjoyed by all other Georgians, people harmed by medical wrongdoing/malpractice would have to get permission to have a jury trial from a “screening panel” comprised of members of the medical and insurance industries, the same industries that want to avoid compensating injured patients. This approach is wrong and adds an unnecessary, ineffective layer to our civil justice system.

The fact is all medical malpractice cases brought in Georgia have already been through multiple screening hoops. The first hoop is that you have to have had something very bad happen as a result of malpractice. Your next hoop is that you have to find a lawyer willing and able to take your case. That lawyer will tell you that there is another, special hoop that protects only professionals charged with negligence. In order to pass through that hoop, the patient must find a medical professional willing to publicly criticize their colleague and sign a document swearing that malpractice happened. So far your case has been screened three times: Something bad happens. You find a lawyer who will invest in helping you find justice. And, you find another doctor who agrees that there was malpractice and is willing to say so. Then there’s a fourth screening before you can have a jury hear your case: the judge must screen the case, too.

Our Founding Fathers created the world's best independent screening panels when they imbedded the right to a trial by jury in our Constitution. You are entitled to a jury of your peers, not a two step process, the first of which is a trial by jury of the defendant's colleagues. We trust the people of our communities to fairly resolve our disputes when we are unable to resolve them ourselves.

The CEO cites an approach tried in Maine as being the right fit for us here in Georgia. He fails to mention that this approach is regularly criticized by the Supreme Court of Maine as being inadequate and harmful to the people of Maine. He cites, as a reason for needing “screening panels,” a Georgia case involving a plastic surgeon who carelessly destroyed the blood supply to a woman’s face and left her horribly disfigured. He suggests that this woman – who was horribly injured through no fault of her own and who successfully navigated all of the legal hurdles to hold the wrongdoer accountable for herself and other patients – has not done enough. He says she needs to clear yet another hurdle to prove herself worthy of a jury trial. The suggestion is outrageous and it serves no purpose but to deny those who have been harmed their fair measure of justice.

Why should patients who have been harmed by medical malpractice have to go through two trials when everyone else only has to go through one? Why should medical professionals get special treatment? It's a question with an obvious answer: They shouldn't.

Insurance Company Profits 24% Higher in States with Severe Restrictions on Patients' Rights

For Immediate Release: December 10, 2009

Contact: Ray De Lorenzi
American Association for Justice
202-965-3500 x8369
AAJ Press Room

Report: State Tort Reforms Don't Lower Premiums
For Doctors or Patients

Insurance company profits 24% higher in states with severe restrictions on patients' rights

Washington, DC—State tort reforms have provided a boon to insurance companies, leading to record profits while physician and patient premiums continue to skyrocket.

An analysis of data from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) and company annual statements shows malpractice insurer profits are 24 percent higher in states with caps. In these cap states, insurers took in 3.5 times more in premiums than they paid out in 2008. In contrast, insurers in states without caps took in just over twice what they paid in claims.

The findings also show absolutely no correlation between the cost of malpractice premiums and health insurance premiums. For example, Maine has the ninth lowest malpractice premiums but the fourth highest health insurance premiums. Conversely, Nevada has the third lowest health insurance premiums nationally, but malpractice premiums are the country's ninth highest, despite having a cap in place for eight years.

"The data are clear: tort reform is just another insurance company handout," said American Association for Justice President Anthony Tarricone. "Insurers cried wolf and demanded tort reform, only to pocket the profits and never pass savings onto physicians or patients. While 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, it's nonsensical to limit patients' rights simply to fill insurance company coffers."

The report also shows how medical negligence laws were passed under false pretenses. The medical malpractice insurance industry has seen a 47 percent increase in profitability in the last 10 years. Overblown "reported" losses were used by the insurance industry to justify new measures restricting the rights of those injured by medical negligence.

Now that over 30 states have malpractice caps, insurance companies are enjoying extremely high levels of profit. In 2008, the average profit of the 10 largest medical malpractice insurers was higher than 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average.

Finally, the report explains the dynamics of the insurance cycle and trends in premium pricing, which are well-known by analysts within the insurance industry. Remarkably, the industry’s leaders are already positioning to claim another “tort crisis” and to lobby for even more severe restrictions on patients’ rights in 2012.

To view a copy of Insurance Company Handout: How the Industry Used Tort Reform to Increase Profits While Americans' Premiums Soared, visit http://www.justice.org/clips/Insurance_Company_Handout.pdf.

AAJ has released a series of reports throughout the health care debate, as well as video tributes to the lives behind medical negligence. To learn more, visit www.98000reasons.org.

###
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 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.