So what does happen when someone gets hurt or killed by a drunk driver in North Carolina?

First, let me make this clear: Nichols Law Firm only represents people injured or killed by drunk drivers. We never defend drunk drivers. When I teach a class to lawyers who defend drunk drivers, I’m teaching them the best ways to help my injured clients, which sometimes can be mutually beneficial to their client.

When a North Carolina drunk driver wrecks your car and injures you or your loved ones, we all hope that they are arrested at the scene. The arresting officer will do field sobriety tests, and if the driver does poorly on the tests, there will be probable cause to request a breath test for blood alcohol concentration. The drunk driver can refuse that test but the arresting officer can force a blood draw to get the results. Any blood alcohol concentration over .08% will result in an arrest for driving while intoxicated. Some refer to that simply as DWI or DUI.

Is a personal injury claim against a drunk driver any different from a regular personal injury claim?

A personal injury case against a drunk driver is pretty similar to one against a non-drunk driver. An adjuster from the drunk driver’s insurance company will want to take a recorded statement from you over the phone. They may ask you about all the ways you think the driver was intoxicated. It’s really important to get that right and make sure that you tell them all the signs of intoxication you saw: glassy eyes, smell of alcohol, unsteady on feet, slurring words, and of course, any statements the other driver made about drinking.

So what are punitive damages in drunk driving cases?

In North Carolina, under General Statute Chapter 1D, Punitive Damages, anyone hurt or killed by a drunk driver, who proves the driver was drunk and driving negligently, may be entitled to receive punitive damages on top of the compensatory damages present in every injury case. Compensatory damages are things like medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, permanent scars, lost work, ambulance and doctor bills, and permanent disability. Punitives damages are damages on top of the compensatory damages and are meant solely to punish the drunk driver and deter other people from drunk driving.

§ 1D-1. Purpose of punitive damages.

Punitive damages may be awarded, in an appropriate case and subject to the provisions of this Chapter, to punish a defendant for egregiously wrongful acts and to deter the defendant and others from committing similar wrongful acts. (1995, c. 514, s. 1.)

In general, punitive damages are limited to 3 times the amount of the compensatory damages, or $250,000, whichever is greater. But the Legislature made an exception to the cap on punitive damages in North Carolina: drunk drivers.

§ 1D-26. Driving while impaired; exemption from cap.

G.S. 1D-25(b) shall not apply to a claim for punitive damages for injury or harm arising from a defendant’s operation of a motor vehicle if the actions of the defendant in operating the motor vehicle would give rise to an offense of driving while impaired under G.S. 20-138.1, 20-138.2, or 20-138.5. (1995, c. 514, s. 1.)

Do I need a lawyer to represent me when I have been hit by a drunk driver?

If you or a loved one gets hit by a drunk driver in Raleigh, Durham, or Chapel Hill, it is a good idea to at least have a free consultation with a lawyer. There are many reasons for this. First, you may be required to come to court as a witness in the drunk driving prosecution. Or you may be called on to give a victim impact statement at the drunk driver’s sentencing hearing. While the local District Attorney offices do a great job with victims, they can’t “represent you” or give you legal advice. Having your own lawyer, right from the start, means that I can come to the criminal court trial with you and help you through out. It also means that I will monitor the criminal case, and make sure the drunk driver receives appropriate punishment.

How does my lawyer help when I’m called as a witness or victim of a drunk driver?

Along the same lines, the criminal defense attorney can sometimes coordinate with me, as your attorney, to be very helpful to the injured party by facilitating money settlements with the injured party as part of criminal restitution or civil settlement. Sometimes the drunk driver’s lawyer will also coordinate with me to make sure that the insurance company for the drunk driver is paying a fair amount of money, considering the compensatory and punitive damages.

What experience does Nichols Law Firm and Chris Nichols, Attorney have making claims against drunk drivers?

I’ve been practicing law for 25 years and my first few years I actually defended drunk drivers when I worked for a senior attorney. This gave me great practical insight into how the criminal prosecution works. As a civil lawyer, I also have to prove the defendant was intoxicated, and having worked on both sides of this, I have a lot of knowledge. At any given time, my office usually has 4 or 5 cases against drunk drivers. Because of this, we have developed systems to catch drunk drivers in any lies or exaggerations they make about their alcohol use and rehabilitation. It’s not unusual for a criminal defendant to testify they have “put down the bottle”, only to have our private investigator see them buy booze at the ABC store and drive away on a limited permit that does not allow for that. When we catch defendants in lies like this, the cases against them often settle for more money and faster. Rarely do we have to try one of the civil cases against drunk drivers.

If you or a loved one has been hurt or killed by a drunk driver, you can call me, Chris Nichols, directly, for a free consultation: 919.915.0212

Be safe out there!

Chris Nichols
Nichols Law Firm

In NC you have three years to settle or file a lawsuit for personal injury (but not death, that’s two years)

In North Carolina you have three years to either settle a personal injury case or file a lawsuit. I did not say “file a claim.” I did not say “talk with an insurance adjuster”. I did not say “be in the middle of negotiations.”

On the third anniversary of your car wreck, you either need to have a settlement worked out, in writing and agree upon by the insurance adjuster and you, or you need to file an actual lawsuit in a court of law in NC.

If you are still negotiating with that adjuster at midnight on the third anniversary of your car wreck, you can never get anything for your claim. The next minutes that adjuster will say “Sorry, your statute of limitations ran, you have no claim.” And so you ask, “Wouldn’t the insurance company tell me that my time is running out?” The answer is NO. In fact, I’ve seen situations where the insurance adjusters actively seek to delay the settlement.

The wrongful death statute in North Carolina has a two year statute of limitations

If the car wreck resulted in a death, or wrongful death in North Carolina, the time limit is TWO YEARS. Also, to sue for the wrongful death of a loved one, there must be an Estate set up in the name of the deceased and an Administrator or Executor must actually be the party that sues. Cases like that look like this:

The Estate of John Doe, Susan Doe, Administrator V. Big Truck Company, LLC 

Setting up an Estate takes time. And even though there may be one type of Estate set up, it might not be the right type to bring a wrongful death claim.

I think I get this statute stuff, do I have to have a lawyer?

Not every case needs a lawyer. Really, a lawyer just told you that. I talk to a lot of people on the phone, give them a few pointers and send them on their way. It’s sometimes a good idea to settle your own case when it is simple and small. But complicated cases probably need lawyers. So it’s always a good idea to call a lawyer like me, and ask.

But really, if you call me on the day that your statute of limitations is about to run out, there is a 95% chance that I will not be able to save you and your case. Lawyers can not send an email to the court to file a lawsuit. It sometimes takes days to draft the paperwork. We have to find the Defendant and make sure we can serve them with papers. We need to see police reports. This takes time.

In law we frequently abbreviate Statute of Limitation as SOL. And if you miss one, you are SOL on your SOL. 

When is the latest you should call a lawyer for a personal injury case?

I would say that the latest that I would get in touch would be six months before the statute runs out. Put another way, two and half years after the accident for personal injury and one and a half years for wrongful death. That gives the lawyer time to gather your medical records, talk to experts, file the lawsuit, and get it served on the defendant. You see, even though the insurance company pays the claim, the other driver is the one who gets named in the lawsuit. So it’s not as easy as my office sending a letter to State Farm. We actually have to send the Sheriff or a certified letter to someone so they can be “served.”

If you waited past two and half years, you should still call for advice. Just know that a lot of lawyers don’t like taking cases that close to the statute of limitations.

What about children or kids? How long do minors have to settle their personal injury claims or file a lawsuit?

In NC, a minor is anyone under age 18. Minor’s statute of limitations work differently than adults. A minor’s statute does not BEGIN to run until they are age 18. Then it runs the normal 3 years for personal injury. Crazy, right? So if you are in a car accident at age 2, you will have until your 21st birthday to settle the claim or file a lawsuit! This is also true for other injury claims, like sexual abuse.

But there is a catch…. (there is always a catch, right?). The catch is this: In North Carolina, the medical bills for an injured minor (anyone under age 18) “belong” to the mom, dad, or legal guardian of the minor. What does that mean? It means that because a minor can’t sign a contract, when a minor goes to the hospital or doctor and has a bill for services, that bill is actually the parent or guardian’s bill. Don’t pay it? The parent or guardian gets sued by the hospital, not the minor.

So what’s the catch? Well, the catch is this- in the example above where the two year old gets hurt in a car wreck, let’s assume the medical bills are $50,000. Three years from the date of the wreck, the parent/guardian’s statute of limitations to sue for those medical bills expires. So on 3 years +1 day, the minor can still sue for pain and suffering and other economic wages, but NOT for past medical expenses.

But, there is a catch to the catch! There is a way for the parents to assign the claim for medical bills to the minor child so that those medical bills become part of the claim for the minor that does not run out until age 21. This can be tricky and I recommend lawyer supervision to deal with this. The good news is that it can be done quickly, so if you are reading this on the 2 year 364th day of the anniversary of an injury to a minor, it might not be too late to fix that problem. Call me!

Heartbreaker

I spoke to someone today who told me that the adjuster was discussing her case with her one day before her three year statute of limitations. She even asked if that was going to be a problem and the adjuster said “you have an open file claim.” That made the person feel good, even though it was a meaningless phrase.

When she called the day after the 3 year anniversary of her accident, the adjuster said “sorry, you didn’t file a lawsuit in time, you have no claim.”

No, she can’t sue him for that. Adjusters work for the driver that hit you! Their job is to pay you the least amount of money possible. That’s what they get paid to do. Not all of them are this heartless, some would warn you to get a lawyer or file a law suit. A lot of them are very good people. But consumers don’t really have the information or ability to decide who is who.

I had to tell this fine person that she no longer had a claim. It was a heartbreaker.

So if you’ve been waiting, even if you are still being treated for injuries, please call me or another lawyer and just get some advice (free and over the phone) on your time limits and whether you even need a lawyer. I’ve been doing this (looks at watch) for 23 years now, so I’ve probably handled a case like yours before. Let’s talk.

Chris Nichols, Attorney
800-906-5984

The legislators who have bought into the corporate lobbyist’s money agenda in Senate Bill 33 would gladly sacrifice the liberty of the citizens at the throne of the new “King”: international pharmaceutical corporations and insurance companies.

This BOLD parts are from the “core values” listed for the “Tea Party Patriots” and serve as an example of Tea Party values. http://www.teapartypatriots.org/mission.aspx

Core Values of the Tea Party

• Fiscal Responsibility
• Constitutionally Limited Government
• Free Markets

Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Why “tort reform” proposed by the NC legislature is contrary to these values:

Fiscal responsibility emanates from the individual and is embodied by the government which derives its existence from the will of the people. “Tort reform” in the form of arbitrary caps on damages and immunity from certain forms of negligence by certain “classes” of individual (for example, immunity for negligent emergency room doctors) shifts the natural consequences of actions from the wrong doer to the government. Individuals who do harm should be held personally responsible for the full extent of their harm and not shift financial responsibility to government entitlement programs.

“Tort reform” in the form of NC Senate Bill 33, simply redistributes the cost of individual harm from the wrong doer to the tax payer. More specifically, by providing immunity to certain types of negligent physicians, when those physicians cause great harm to individuals, the harmed individual will eventually take tax dollars in the form of entitlement programs such as medicare, social security disability, and medicaid. The harmed citizen will be a drain on our government and our taxes.

Fiscal responsibility demands that the individual causing harm rely on their own resources and insurance converge in a robust free market- not the government to use tax dollars to bail out the negligent.

“Tort reform” is not fiscally responsible.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states’ rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Why “tort reform” proposed by the NC legislature is contrary to these values:

There is no question that our founders believed in, and enshrined with the Constitution, the unalienable right to a jury trial for civil suits, which our Founding Fathers protected through the 7th Amendment to the Constitution after centuries of recognition in British law and Judeo-Christian writings.

Historically, the right to a trial by jury was the basis for “The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms,” which was a document issued to explain why the colonists had initiated armed conflict against Great Britain, and was written by John Dickinson of Virginia based on a draft by Thomas Jefferson.

Dickinson wrote in the Declaration, “Parliament was influenced to adopt the pernicious project, and assuming a new power over them, have in the course of eleven years, given such decisive specimens of the spirit and consequences attending this power, as to leave no doubt concerning the effects of acquiescence under it. They have undertaken to give and grant our money without our consent, though we have ever exercised an exclusive right to dispose of our own property; statutes have been passed for extending the jurisdiction of courts of admiralty and vice-admiralty beyond their ancient limits; for depriving us of the accustomed and inestimable privilege of trial by jury, in cases affecting both life and property…” — Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms, enacted July 6, 1775 by the Second Continental Congress

The “tort reform” proposed by the North Carolina legislature fundamentally deprives citizens of the right to a trial by jury in several ways. First, it grants blanket immunity from suit to certain classes of citizens, namely, emergency physicians and emergency room personnel, and corporate producers of pharmaceuticals (drugs). The proposals say, quite plainly, that a citizen injured or killed by any of these privileged groups can not sue and have a jury determine the fairness of their claim.

The Constitution clearly guarantees the right to a trial by jury to all citizens in the 7th Amendment.

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

John Adams wrote:

As the Constitution requires that the popular branch of the legislature should have an absolute check, so as to put a peremptory negative upon every act of the government, it requires that the common people, should have as complete a control, as decisive a negative, in every judgment of a court of judicature.

He also wrote, “Representative government and trial by jury are the heart and lungs of liberty. Without them we have no other fortification against being ridden like horses, fleeced like sheep, worked like cattle and fed and clothed like swine and hounds.”

Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.”

James Madison, the author of the Constitution and the fourth President of the United States, said, “Trial by jury in civil cases is as essential to secure the liberty of the people as any one of the pre-existent rights of nature.”

“Tort reform” as proposed in SB33 and other bills curtails the natural right to trial by jury and should be opposed.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government’s interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Why “tort reform” proposed by the NC legislature is contrary to these values:

A free market economy rewards entrepreneurs for their actions that benefit society. The manufacturer who builds a superior product wins in the marketplace, and few would question that manufacturer’s right to reap the rewards of its own ingenuity. This is largely because the manufacturer has, in the effort to succeed, shouldered a risk of failure. It is the marketplace, comprised of ordinary people, rather than the government, which determines whether the manufacturer wins or loses.

If the efficient production of material wealth is all that concerns us, then the marketplace needs no other rewards or penalties. Most will agree, however, that manufacturers should be encouraged to create safe as well as efficient products, for the number of deaths and injuries annually caused by defective products is astronomical. According to the 2003 Annual Report of the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, there were 4,509 deaths and 13,690,526 injuries associated with just 15 categories of consumer products during that one-year reporting period. Deaths and injuries caused annually by toxic pharmaceutical products also rival these numbers.

By making manufacturers liable to the people they have injured, the once-revered common law tort system creates an incentive for the manufacturer to build a safer product. Those who advocate more government might suggest that safety can best be engineered from above, by governmental regulation, but true advocates of a free market will agree that it is better to permit the manufacturer to determine how to make its own product safe for consumer use, rather than some government bureaucrat. In exchange for the right to determine the most efficient way to make its products safe, however, a manufacturer must be subject to suit for failure to perform this undertaking.

“Tort reform” as proposed by the NC legislature in SB33 relieves manufacturers of defective products and providers of negligent services from the natural free market consequences of their actions. This creates imbalance in the market and also encourages an increase in governmental regulations.

The free market demands that consumers have a right to recoup their losses through the fundamental right of trial by jury. This provides natural incentives for “good behavior” in the marketplace.

Some suggestions:

The House Select Committee on Tort Reform will be considering amendments to HB 542 at their next meeting on Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 11:00 AM. As of right now, there will be no more public input. Those opposing this bill were allowed 8 minutes to speak on the amnesty provision.

If your Representative is a member of the Select Committee on Tort Reform, now is the time to contact them and express your opposition for HB 542. The action you take today will have a great impact on the final outcome of this legislation. If you don’t want NC to be the most dangerous state in the nation, call now.

UPDATE: 4:24 pm March 30, 2011: The Bill has finally been filed, all of 18 hours before it is to be debated. House Bill 542

Here is the relevant language:

No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if:

1. The product alleged to have caused harm was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold, or represented in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of approval, license or similar determination of a government agency, where the approval, license or similar determination is relevant to the event or risk allegedly causing the harm; or
2. The product was in compliance with a statute of this State or the United States, …where the stature or agency action is relevant to the event or risk allegedly causing harm….

This is HUGE.

This means that a product regulated by ANY state or Federal agency would be immune from suit by North Carolina citizens who are hurt or maimed by the product which is eventually found defective.

Think: bad tires, bad cars, Vioxx, bad drugs, toys containing lead or poison, etc.

Here is a “short” list of products whose manufacturers would be immune from a law suit if that product killed you or hurt you or someone you love.

Manufacturers of 328 Types of Products regulated and approved by the US Agencies will receive IMMUNITY from law suits for defective products that maim, kill and destroy property and people.

The manufactures of defective products would receive immunity from suit because the agency is “vested with the authority of this State or of the United States to issue rules, regulations, orders, or standards, concerning the design, manufacture, packaging, labeling, or advertising of a product or a service.” Tort Reform for Citizens and Businesses: Section 3.1(b) amendment to Chapter 99B-1 (1a)

US Consumer Product Safety Commission (USCPSC) Regulated Products

Acetaminophen (products containing)

Acetic acid (products containing)

Adhesives -containing methyl alcohol

Adhesives -extremely flammable contact

Adhesives -floor covering

Adhesives nitrocellulose base

Aerosols (see self-pressurized products)

Ammonia, ammonia water (products containing) household, ammonium hydroxide

Antennas – CB base station and TV

Antennas -Omnidirectional CB base station

Antifreeze, ethylene glycol

Antiquing kits

Appliances, coal and wood-burning

Architectural glazing materials

Art Materials

Artist’s paints

Asbestos- containing patching compounds

Asbestos -containing garments for general use

Aspirin products

Baby bouncers & walkers

Balloons, plastic mixtures

Batteries, storage, wet-cell

Benzene paint solvents containing

Bicycles

Bicycle helmets

Biological specimens, preserved

Blasting caps

Bunk Beds

Butane in cigarette lighters

Carbolic acid (phenol) (products containing)

Carbon tetrachloride (products containing)

Carpets and rugs (large)

Carpets and rugs (small)

Caustic poisons (products containing)

Caustic poisons – potash (products containing)

Caustic poisons – soda (products containing)

Cellulose insulation

Cellulose sponges

Charcoal briquettes

Chemistry sets

Child-resistant packaging (see special packaging)

Chlorofluorocarbons, self pressurized products containing Acetonitrile (see glue remover)

Aluminized polyester film kite

Asbestos -containing artificial emberizing materials

Benzene (products containing) benzol

Bergamot oil (products containing)

Betamethasone (products containing)

Children’s Products (see “Toys/Children’s Products”)

Cigarette lighters

Cleaning products

Clothing (see wearing apparel, sleepwear)

Coal burning appliances (see appliances)

Combustible hazardous substances

Conjugated estrogen tablets (products containing)

Consumer product

Containers consumer-owned (portable)

Controlled drugs (products containing)

Corrosive substances (products containing)

Cosmetics

Cribs -full size

Cribs -non-full size

Cushions, infant

Cyanide salts (products containing)

Dietary supplements, iron-containing (products containing)

Disclaimer deceptive use of

Dive Sticks

Drain cleaners, liquid

Drugs, Oral Prescription -All Exceptions

Drugs -controlled

Drugs -iron containing

Drugs -oral prescription

Drugs -over the counter

Dry-cleaning solvents

Epoxy resins

Ethylene glycol (products containing)

Ethylene glycol in felt pads

Exports (noncomplying products)

Extremely flammable contents of self-pressurized containers

Extremely flammable hazardous substances

Extremely flammable solids

Eye irritants (products containing)

Fabrics

Felt-tip marking devices

Cholestyramine, anhydrous (products containing)

Clacker balls

Colestipol (products containing)

Dibucaine (products containing)

Diethylene glycol (products containing)

Diethylenetriamine (products containing)

Diglycidyl ethers (products containing)

Diphenhydramine preparations

Emberizing materials artificial, containing asbestos

Erythromycin ethylsuccinate, Suspension & granules

for suspension (products containing)

Erythromycin ethylsuccinate, tablets (products containing)

Ethanol containing mouthwash

Ethylenediamine (products containing)

Ferrous oxalate (products containing)

Fire extinguishers

Fireworks

First Aid

Flammable contents of self-pressurized containers

Flammable solids (products containing)

Flammable substances (products containing)

Fluoride (products containing)

Food

Formaldehyde (products containing)

Fuel

Furniture painted with lead containing paint

Furniture polish -liquid

Furniture polish -paste

Garage Door Openers- automatic residential

Gasoline

Glazing compounds

Heaters (see appliances)

Highly toxic substances (products containing)

Household substances

Hydrocarbons

Hydrochloric acid (products containing)

Ibuprofen (products containing)

Imported products & importers

Imports

Industrial supplies

Infant cushions

Ink cartridges dry concentrate containers

Ink-marking devices

Insulation, cellulose

Iron preparations

Irritant substances

Kerosene

Kindling & illuminating preparations

Labels

Laboratory chemicals (if educational)

Lacquers

Lawn darts

Lawnmowers power

Fertilizersdry

granular

Fuel kits with diflouro dichloromethane

Glue remover containing acetonitrile (household)

Hartshorn (products containing)

Hypochlorous acid (products containing)

Isobutane in cigarette lighters

Isosorbide dinitrate -prescription sublingual and chewable forms (products containing)

Ketoprofen (products containing)

Kites aluminized polyester film

Lead in paint (products containing)

Lighter fluid, etc. (products containing)

Lunar caustic (silver nitrate) (products containing)

Lye (products containing)

Matchbooks

Matches

Mattresses (cigarette ignition)

Mattresses (open flame ignition)

Methyl alcohol (methanol) (products containing)

Mineral oil in toys (products containing)

Mineral seal oil (products containing)

Mineral spirits (products containing)

Minoxidil (products containing)

Mirrors

Mixtures of hazardous substances

Mouthwash containing ethanol

Multiple hazard substances with

Multipurpose Lighters

Naphtha (products containing)

Neutralizers, Permanent Wave (see Permanent Wave Neutralizers)

Nitric acid (products containing)

Nitroglycerine prescription (products containing)

Oral contraceptives

Orris root powdered (products containing)

Over-the-Counter (OTC) Drugs (see Drugs, Over the Counter)

Oxalic acid and salts (products containing)

Packages, child resistance (see child-resistant packaging)

Packages, sample

Paint (lead in) (products containing)

Paint solvents

Painting kits

Paper items

Patching compounds containing asbestos

Percussion explosives

Lidocaine (products containing)

Loperamide (products containing)

Mebendazole (products containing)

Medroxyprogesterone acetate tablets (products containing)

Methacrylic acid (products containing)

Methylprednisolone (products containing)

Methyl salicylate (products containing)

Naproxen (products containing)

Nitrites (Butyl and Volatile Alkyl)

Norethindrone acetate tablets (products containing)

Pacifiers (see Toys/Children’s Products)

Pancrelipase (products containing)

Paraphenylenediamine (products containing)

Perchloroethylene in visual novelty devices

Petroleum distillates

Photographic color processing kits

Plant foods -dry granular

Poisons, caustic (products containing)

Polishing products

Potassium hydroxide

Prescription Drugs (Oral)

Pressure-generating substances

Propellant devices for model rockets

Radiator cleaners

Radioactive substances

Refrigerator doors

Refuse bins -unstable

Roof coatings

Rope, cord, string, etc.

Rugs see Carpets

Rubber vulcanizing products

Self-pressurized products

Self-pressurized products containing vinyl chloride

Sensitizers (products containing)

Signal words

Sodium hydroxide

Solder kit

Solder paste

Permanent wave neutralizers containing sodium bromate or potassium bromate

Phenol (carbolic acid)

Photodynamic sensitizer

Potash, caustic

Potassium supplements effervescent

(products containing)

Prednisone

Primary irritant

Sacrosidase (sucrase) in a solution of glycerol and water

Salt (sodium chloride)

Self-pressurized products containing chloroflorocarbons

Silver nitrate (lunar caustic)

Sleepwear, children’s, sizes 0-6x & sizes 7-14

Sodium arsenite

Sodium fluoride

Sodium/potassium hydroxide

Special packaging

Spot removers single-use

Spot removing kits

Sponges, cellulose

Swimming pool slides

Tank coatings

Thread, string, twine, etc.

Turpentine (products containing)

Varnish

Video games

Vienna paste (products containing)

Vinyl chloride (products containing)

Solvents (for Paint and other surface coatings)

Stoddard solvent

Stoves, coal & wood burning

Strong sensitizers

Sulfuric acid

Toluene (toluol)

Toxic substances

Toys/Children’s Products- All

Toys/Children’s Products- choking hazard warnings for small parts, balloons, marbles, balls

Toys/Children’s Products- balls, small

Toys/Children’s Products- caps & toy guns producing, impulse-type sound

Toys/Children’s Products- choking incidents

Toys/Children’s Products- clacker balls

Toys/Children’s Products- electrically-operated toys and children’s article

Toys/Children’s Products- games, self-pressurized -hollow plastic toys games

Toys/Children’s Products- marbles

Toys/Children’s Products- mineral oil

Toys/Children’s Products- painted with lead or containing lead

Toys/Children’s Products- pacifiers

Toys/Children’s Products -rattles

Toys/Children’s Products -sharp edges

Toys/Children’s Products -sharp points

Toys/Children’s Products -small parts

Toys/Children’s Products -model rockets

Toys/Children’s Products -model rockets, propellant

Toys/Children’s Products -train smoke

Toys/Children’s Products -use and abuse tests

Toys/Children’s Products -tubes, collapsible metal (labeling)

Toys/Children’s Products -unpackaged hazardous substances (labeling)

Vinyl plastic film

Walker-jumper

Wax containers

Waxes, paste for autos, furniture, floors and shoes

Wearing apparel

Writing instruments

Visual novelty devices -containing perchloroethylene

Volatile flammable materials

Water-repellent mixtures (masonry)

Wood burning appliances

Xylene (xylol)

Federal Drug Administration (FDA) PRODUCTS

Food safety

Tobacco products

Dietary supplements

Prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical Drugs

Vaccines

Biopharmaceuticals

Blood transfusions

Gene therapy

Cell and tissue based products

Medical devices

Electromagnetic radiation emitting devices (ERED)

cellular phones

airport baggage screening equipment

television receivers

microwave ovens

tanning booths

laser products

Veterinary products

Cosmetics

Sanitation requirements on interstate travel

Control of disease on products

Sperm donation for assisted reproduction

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Regulated Products

Meat

Poultry

Egg products

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regulated Products

Vehicle safety

Vehicle recalls

Child safety seats

Airbags

Safe auto parts

Tire safety

Steering components

Fuel system components

Accelerator controls

Wheels that crack or break

Engine cooling fan blades that break

Windshield wiper assemblies that fail

Seats and/or seat backs that fail

Critical vehicle components that break

Wiring system problems that result in a fire

Car ramps or jacks that may collapse

Air bags that deploy incorrectly

Child safety seats that contain defective safety belts
__________________________________________________________________

HIGH COSTS TO STATES

No other state in the Nation has a law like this. The only state that is close is Michigan, which has a provision that deals only with immunity for Drug Manufacturers who receive FDA approval. Other states have had lesser versions of this bill but none had given complete immunity. This is an interesting history of “FDA defense” bills: http://www.centerjd.org/archives/studies/MIDrugImmunityF.pdf

As a result of Michigan’s “FDA Law”, the State of Michigan lost $82 MIllion dollars in “refunds” from the manufacturer of Vioxx who was accused of falsifying safety records to the FDA.

One of the reasons Michigan passed the law in 1995 was to attempt to keep Merck and Pfizer as empoloyers in the state. Michigan passed the law and Merck left anyhow. also In 2007, Pfizer announced plans to completely close the Ann Arbor, Nagoya and Amboise Research facilities by the end of 2008, eliminating 2,160 jobs and idling the $300-million dollar Michigan facility.

Can North Carolina afford to give a pass on the safety of all of these items?

Vioxx cost Michigan $82 million in additional Medicaid costs.Michigan can’t recover those damages from Merck because of the “FDA defense.” If this bill is enacted, NC Medicaid and NC taxpayers will also be left holding the bag. The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed this “defense” on March 11, 2011.

These questions need to be asked:

WHY DOES THE LEGISLATURE WANT TO MAKE NC THE DUMPING GROUND FOR DANGEROUS AND DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS, WITHOUT CREATING A SINGLE JOB?

WHY WOULD THE LEGISLATURE LEGALIZE THE SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS?

HOW DID NC GET THIS PROPOSED LAW?

How did this “law” get to North Carolina? It got here from ALEC, the “American Legislative Exchange Counsel” a libertarian and conservative think tank funded by big industry with their goal of protecting corporate interests from any safety regulation.

Who funds ALEC? If you go to the link you will find a long list of manufacturers, drug makers, industrial polluters, and other “mega corporations”.

WHAT CAN I DO?? IF YOU DON’T THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA FOR NC, PLEASE CONTACT ANY MEMBER OF THE HOUSE SELECT COMMITEE ON TORT REFORM:

You can find them at NC House Select Committee on Tort Reform. Or here: http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/Committees/Committees.asp?sAction=ViewCommittee&sActionDetails=House%20Select_127

Send them an email or a letter. Or give them a call. They meet tomorrow (Thursday, March 31) at 11 am. Act now, before it is too late.

Chris Nichols

As these things go, we lawyers know that the best way to get to the bottom of things is to “follow the money” and that’s what this post is all about.

And of course, what I’m talking about is the very recent creation of a “grass roots” effort to change the the laws of medical malpractice in North Carolina. That “grass roots” organization stealthily sprung to life on March 10, 2011, as a non-profit organization called “North Carolinians for Affordable Health Care, Inc.”

What follows is the story of the “birth of an astro-turf” organization. And if you are not familiar with that term, let me give you my definition. We’ve all heard of “grass roots” organizations, right? They start out with regular people who have a concern about something. Those people organize and get the word out and suddenly they create a movement which gains momentum. And when that movement gets big enough, these regular people get a “voice” on the public stage with the politicians and large corporations that can simply “buy” access to government with lobbyists. Well, “astro-turf” is the opposite of that. An “astro-turf” organization is something created by a corporation or a lobbyist to appear to be “of the people” when it is, in fact, just a shill by “the man”- some corporate interest that wants to pose as “the people.”

As you read this rather lengthy post, you’ll get to see how a small group of politically connected lawyers created an “astro-turf” organization to persuade politicians and the public to take away the rights or regular people to bring a claim against an insurance company and hospital when that hospital makes a mistake that injures, maims, or kills someone they love.

3/10/2011 Articles of incorporation for North Carolinians for Affordable Health Care (NCFAHC) is filed.

It is, of course, a Section 501(c)(4) Corporation.

The name and address of the incorporator is R. Donavon Munford, Jr.,

P. O. Box 2611, Raleigh, NC 27602-2611.

Reference: NC Secretary of State Filings

North Carolinians for Affordable Health Care is incorporated by a Republican former member of the NC General Assembly who is a partner in the Smith Anderson Law Firm

R. Donovan “Don” Munford was a Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly representing the state’s thirty-fourth House district, including constituents in Wake County from 2002. Munford is a lawyer and accountant from Raleigh, North Carolina.

Munford ran for re-election to the North Carolina House of Representatives in the 2004 General Assembly election. He defeated J.H. Ross in the Republican primary, but lost to Democrat Grier Martin in the November 2004 general election.

 He is a partner at Smith Anderson, the largest law firm in the Raleigh area. He practices in the areas of corporate and business law, estate planning and asset protection planning. Munford is also a licensed Certified Public Accountant. (Reference: Munford Wikipedia Entry)

Smith Anderson Law Firm is a leading Medical Malpractice Insurance Defense law firm and also a government lobbying law firm.

Smith Anderson Law Firm registered the website for NCFAHC.

Reference: WhoIS Registration link

Smith Anderson Law Firm has a longstanding relationship with the North Carolina Medical Society and lobbies for them before the General Assembly.

The North Carolina Medical Society is lobbying for immunity from negligence for Emergency Rooms in NC.

3/16/2011 NCFAHC releases a commercial falsely alleging that North Carolina is experiencing “frivolous lawsuits” which increase taxes and insurance costs.

Follow the Money

Are “North Carolinians” demanding immunity for negligent Emergency Rooms and physicians, or is a small group of lawyers, lobbyists, and physicians looking to walk away from their responsibility to the injured, maimed, and killed?

Can anyone explain how making Emergency Rooms immune from claims or lawsuits for “negligence” furthers the Medical Society’s stated purpose to”raise the standards for their profession” and “protect the quality of patient care?”

North Carolina Senate Bill 33 (SB33) does exactly the opposite. SB 33 changes the rules for any medical person in the Emergency Room and eliminates responsibility for “negligence”. This does not “raise the standard” for the profession, but in fact drastically lowers the standard. 

So how does this “protect the quality of patient care?” Well, what happens when you say “you can no longer be held financially accountable for the consequences of sloppy work, negligent work, or breaking and ignoring the established rules in all other Emergency Rooms in the state of North Carolina?”

Does taking accountability away from Doctors, Nurses and Hospitals somehow make people more responsible? Or does it make them act “less responsible?”

How about this? What would happen if we eliminated all speed limits in North Carolina, and just told people not to drive “grossly fast”? Would our roads be safer, or less safe?

Bottom line, the NC Medical Society, through their lawyers and lobbyists are “posing” as you, the people, in an effort to take away your right to hold a small group of bad doctors accountable.

And of course, where do the ACTUAL people stand on this issue?

Please write your elected House member a note and tell them to oppose this Bill.

Here is how to look them up: Who Represents Me?

(Scroll down to the bottom and look up by your Zip code)

This proposed Senate Bill S33 is a laundry list of of ways to limit the rights of normal citizens in NC. While physicians may THINK this proposed Bill will help them, in reality, the bill is a giant GIFT to the insurance industry because it simply reduces the amounts of money insurance companies might have to pay in legitimate claims. Or put another way, it limits the recovery of individuals whom a jury have determined are truly injured by medical negligence.

Here is a quick rundown on the Bill and my comments on the reality of the provisions.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE- If your emergency room doctor commits negligence, you can’t sue them. You can only sue if they are GROSSLY negligent, like, if they were drunk. So, when the ER doc gives your spouse an injection of penicillin, even though her medical chart says she is severely allergic to it, and she dies- too bad. Gross negligence is a very high standard in North Carolina.

BIFURCATION OF TRIALS ON ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES in any case over $75,000.

This means that in any case with a value of over $75,000 (which is almost every medical malpractice case out there) you essentially have two trials. The first part is on the question of negligence. Did the doctor make a mistake. The second part is on the damages. Sounds tempting and simple but the real reason behind this is two fold. First, it makes trials longer and more costly for the injured party. Many witnesses who could testify once, now have to testify twice. Experts are very expensive, sometimes $5,000 per day. Insurance Companies have nearly unlimited resources to bring in experts. Injured people do not. Second, by keeping out the damages, the jury does not have any idea how badly the mistake has affected the injured person. This “depersonalizes” the case which is an advantage to the Defendant.

LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF NONECONOMIC DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED ($250,000 cap on damages) As used in this section, ‘noneconomic damages’ means damages to compensate for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and any other nonpecuniary, compensatory damage. So if your child is burned on 90% of their body in a negligent surgical fire, they get about $3,000 a year for life. And of course, this cap on damages ONLY affects people who have a legitimate case, i.e., some one whom a jury has just determined is injured as a result of negligence. This cap also disproportionately effects retired people who do not have future lost earnings. And of course, this means insurance companies can get off cheap, even if a jury thinks a higher amount is warranted.

BY AUTHORIZING THE PERIODIC PAYMENT OF FUTURE ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN LIEU OF A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT. Basically, this is in there because if the person who is awarded damages by a jury dies later, their family will not inherit the money. It will go back to the insurance company.

MODIFYING APPEAL BONDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS. This just makes it cheaper for insurance companies to appeal when they lose.

If approved, this act becomes effective October 1, 2011. (Better go to the doctor now.)

When “tort reform” was being debated on the Federal level, I produced a mock “Do It Yourself Tort Reform Release” which tried to demonstrate the reality of what the law makers were proposing. It got picked up by some national press and “went viral,” in as much as something about the law goes viral.

So, if you just can’t wait for Medical Malpractice “tort reform”, just download this handy form, sign it, and take it to your next doctor’s appointment.

NC elects all of our Judges, we do not have an appointment system or retention elections. This is a great system in the sense that there is very little “inside politics” going on, but it is also a not-so-great system because most citizens have virtually no idea who the judicial candidates are, OR what “qualifies” someone to be a good Judge.

So I am setting out below who I endorse this election. My criteria for endorsement is that the Judicial candidates must be experienced, show judicial demeanor, be impartial, and be fundamentally connected to the preservation of individual constitutional rights and consumer rights. 

NC STATEWIDE JUDICIAL ENDORSEMENTS
NC SUPREME COURT

Suzanne Reynolds – Supreme Court (Edmunds seat)

www.suzannereynolds.org

Professor Reynolds (as I have always known her) is a family law professor (and my ethics law professor) at Wake Forest University School of Law. She is one of the foremost experts in Family Law in this state. She’s been a professor for 27 years. Family Law expertise is vitally important to our High Court because behind most family law questions are real people needing real justice.

Kristin Ruth – Court of Appeals (Tyson seat)

www.judgeruth.com

Sam J. Ervin, IV – Court of Appeals (Tyson seat)

www.ervinforcourtofappeals.com

So this endorsement is a tie. Both candidates listed above are highly qualified and either would make an excellent addition to the Supreme Court.

North Carolina Court of Appeals

Jim Wynn – Court of Appeals

www.judgewynn.com

Judge Wynn is the incumbent and consistently writes well reasoned and well balanced opinions. He’s a Navy veteran, he’s been talked about as a Federal Judge, and he’s endorsed by EVERY major newspaper in NC. This race is a no brainer.

Cheri Beasley – Court of Appeals (McCullough seat)

www.judgecheribeasley.com

Linda Stephens – Court of Appeals

www.judgelinda.org

Judge Stephens is the incumbent. She’s been on the COA for years and has shown herself to be insightful and well balanced in her opinions. She’s well liked by almost all lawyers who appear before her. Keep Linda Stephens.

John Arrowood – Court of Appeals

www.judgearrowood.com

John Martin – Court of Appeals

(unopposed)

“DOWN TICKET” Candidates

I usually confine my endorsements to the Judicial Elections, but this year I’m going to make a few recommendations for the “down ticket” races. While these races are partisan, most of us don’t have a lot of contact in our daily lives with the issues controlled by the down ticket races. As a lawyer, my life and my client’s lives can be deeply changed by the rules and regulations promulgated by these positions. If you vote straight ticket, you need to read these.

Roy Cooper – Attorney General

www.roycooper.com

Roy Cooper is the incumbent. He’s consistently been willing to intervene in “hot topics” and do “the right thing”. Example: Cooper’s office stepped into the highly politicized Duke Lacrosse case and cleared the players of wrongdoing. He’s provided good leadership to our Attorney General office and has been a strong advocate for consumer protection laws, cracking down on bad mortgage lenders, unfair “pay day” lenders, and fraudulent car sales. He has a particularly strong record of pursuing “identity theft” operations.

Janet Cowell – State Treasurer

www.janetcowell.com

Janet is usually well qualified for this job. A Wharton School of business graduate, she can certainly keep our state retirement funds safely invested during troubling economic times.

Elaine Marshall – Secretary of State

www.elainemarshall.org

Elaine Marshall is simply wonderful. She has automated and computerized all of the corporate records in North Carlina, saving businesses and lawyers millions of dollars in lost time because we don’t have to manually record and search for records of incorporation. Her office is responsive and helpful. She well liked by both parties and should remain in her office.

Wayne Goodwin – Insurance Commissioner

www.waynegoodwin.org

In my mind, this is the MOST IMPORTANT downticket race this year. Not many people know this, but North Carolina enjoys very low insurance rates because we are one of very few states where the Commissioner of Insurance has final authority to set rates. In other words, insurance companies MUST request rate increases from the Commissioner of Insurance and must prove why they deserve a rate hike. Our long time incumbent Commissioner Jim Long has a long record of refusing unnecessary rate hikes, and as a result consumers and businesses have saved an incredible amount of money on insurance premiums. Wayne Goodman is a lawyer, a consumer advocate, and has been Jim Long’s “right hand man” for many years. We can count on him to keep the Insurance Commissioner’s office as an advocate for the people of North Carolina.

Goodwin also pledges, like his boss,Long did, to fight any effort by Blue Cross Blue Shield of N.C. to convert from nonprofit to for-profit status, as well as to use the very limited powers available to his office to hold BCBS to its historic public-interest role in health care. Goodwin’s opponent, by accounts a nice guy, was a long time Democrat turned Republican who has no experience in insurance regulation.

Mary Fant Donnan – Labor Commissioner

http://www.maryfantdonnan.com

The NC Labor Commissioner is responsible for a few more things than just inspecting elevators. One of the more powerful duties is overseeing all OSHA investigations in North Carolina. OSHA, in essence, keeps the workplace safe, and the enforcement of OSHA laws sometimes means life or death to workers. Under our current commissioner, the labor department has been decidedly “pro-business” which translates roughly as “anti-worker.” Donnan served as director of research and policy for the Labor Department under former Commissioner Harry Payne, one of the most capable labor commissioners the state has had. She is well-prepared to enact reforms in the Labor Department. The Charlotte Observer has good piece on why our current Labor Commissioner should be replaced: LINK TO OBSERVER ARTICLE

Beth Wood – State Auditor

www.bethwoodcampaign.com

The State Auditor keeps our government honest with our tax dollars. The current Auditor has used his position to wage many political wars and is currently locked in a battle with the Governor’s Ethics Commission. The Auditor should truly run along non-partisan lines, and Beth Wood seems the perfect fit for the job. She has been a Certified Public Accountant for 20 years and served in the State Auditor’s Office for more than a decade under two different administrations. 

Ronnie Ansley – Agriculture Commissioner

www.ansley4ag.com

Ansley received a bachelor’s degree in Agriculture Education from North Carolina State, a Master’s degree in Agriculture Education from Clemson, and a law degree from Mississippi College School of Law. He is presently serving as the National President of the Future Farmers of America Alumni Association.

He advocates that we must invest in renewable-sustainable green energy sources for fuel production.

For the animal lovers out there, you might be interested to know that the Ag Commissioner is responsible for setting the euthanasia standards for animals in North Carolina. 

The winner of the race for NC Commissioner of Agriculture will greatly determine how homeless cats and dogs die in our state. The incumbent, Steve Troxler, favors keeping the gas chamber as a method of euthanasia. Gassing is a horrible way to die; it is often reported that animals cry, defecate, urinate, claw to get out, fight each other, vomit, etc.

National humane organizations recommend injection of sodium phenobarbital as the preferred method of euthanasia.

Ronnie Ansley, has said, “I believe we should always look to the most humane way to handle euthanasia, and I do not believe gas chambers are the way to handle this issue.”

Wake County Judicial Elections

Most of the local Judicial races are “unopposed” and so we don’t need to discuss those. Don’t be frustrated by not having a choice. No choice means that the local attorneys feel that the Judge is doing a good job and therefore no lawyers feel the need to “run against” the incumbent. That’s good news, really. Of course, opposed races don’t mean anything bad about the incumbent, just that someone decided to run. Don’t read into it either way is what I’m saying.

Here are my recommendations in the contested races:

Jacqueline L. Brewer (incumbent) District Court Judge

Judge Brewer is the incumbent who was appointed to a new seat by our current governor. She came from the prosecutors office after 26 years there and by all accounts has been a great Judge.

Anna Elena Worley,(open seat) District Court Judge

http://annaworleyforjudge.com/

Anna Worley is a:

• Board-certified Family Law Specialist
• DRC-certified Family Financial Mediator
• 1996 Wake Forest Law graduate
• Spanish-speaker

I’ve known Anna since undergraduate days at Wake Forest. She’s amazingly fair minded and knowledgeable. Her knowledge of family law is a very important attribute for the District Court as the District Courts handle about 99% of family law disputes. Anna won the primary election by almost 10,000 votes over her opponent in this election. She’ll be fair and hold everyone to the burden of proof they have. While her opponent is a very nice guy and a good lawyer, he’s recently been arrested for a second DWIwhich I believe would compromise his ability to be a District Court judge because if he is convicted (his first court date is October 17th) he could be subject to sanctions from the Judicial Standards Commission. I realize that no one is perfect and we all make mistakes and everyone is innocent until proven guilty but this is a very recent mistake, during an election and would mean we are electing a Judge entering the office under the cloud of a controversy. District Court judges are the court officials that decide guilt and innocence for DWI convictions. To me, this seems like a real problem to be both the defendant and the Judge.

Christine Walczyk (incumbent) District Court Judge

http://www.judgechristine.com/

Judge Walczyk attended the University of North Carolina School of Law at Chapel Hill and went on to open her own law practice in Raleigh. She’s the incumbent and is well liked and respected for her judicial demeanor.

Her opponent in this race has been criticized for unprofessional behavior. In 2003, before the Wake Public Defender’s Office was created, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens barred Rand (her opponent) from representing indigent clients where the State pays for the legal defense. Here is the full article from the N&0.

YOUR VOTE COUNTS- Verify your voting status and vote early

If you want information about your local race, you can view a personalized sample ballot (and check on your registration status) at the NC State Board of Elections website. Just enter your name and you can verify your voting status, voting location, and view a full sample ballot for your voting precinct.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 4, and “early voting” (one stop voting) begins Thursday October 16 through Saturday November 1st. Wake County Early Voting information can be found here on the Wake County Board of Elections Website. State wide early voting information can be found here at the State Board of Elections One-Stop Voting Guide.

Exercise your right to vote! 

__________________

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrial Law.com

That said, where do Obama and McCain stand on Tort Reform? I’ve tried to present the information below from the most unbiased sources I can find.

John McCain on Tort Reform

I’ve included some links from traditionally conservative voices. The Club for Growth and an AMA related website. Most of the information is somewhat critical of McCain for not supporting tort reform “enough.” Because of the nature of the primaries, there is plenty of information about McCain and tort reform from conservative sources (most of which didn’t think he was tough enough on tort reform).

From: The Club For Growth:

Tort Reform

The American economy suffers from excessive litigation which increases the cost of doing business and slows economic growth. The Club for Growth supports major reforms to our tort system to restore a more just and less costly balance in tort litigation.

Senator McCain’s record on tort reform is generally positive. These votes include:

• Sponsored the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 which sought to curb lawsuits by shifting suits from state to federal courts, by requiring judges to review all coupon settlements, and by limiting attorneys’ fees in non-cash settlements^[65]
• Voted for a bill that would bar lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms^[66]
• Voted for a bill that would place caps on damage awards in medical malpractice suits against obstetricians and gynecologists^[67]
• Voted for a motion to proceed to a bill that would cap non-economic and punitive damages in medical malpractice suits^[68]

This generally positive record, however, is tarnished by Senator McCain’s sponsoring of and outspoken support for the Patients’ Bill of Rights,^[69] which encouraged an increase in the number of frivolous lawsuits filed against healthcare providers. He also voted against the Litigation Uniform Standards Act, which limited the conduct of securities class actions under state law.^[70]

And for what it is worth, here is a transcript from a Rush Limbaugh Radio Show where Rush refers to the above website in order to assess McCain’s willingness to implement tort reform. Rush seems to agree with the above- McCain has a good start but could do even better on tort reform.

If we assume that what a politician promises in one election they would support in another election, we can go back to 2000 when McCain was running against Bush in the Republican primary. McCain’s website then stated:

“John McCain has been a leading proponent of lawsuit reform at the federal level. He recently authored the Y2K law that will help limit potential frivolous lawsuits resulting from the Y2K computer problem while also protecting the rights of those truly injured to bring a legal action. The bill addresses the needs of businesses that may find themselves as both plaintiff and defendant, by providing incentives to fix Y2K problems, not rush to the courthouse.

“John McCain has and will continue to fight to reform our nation’s product liability laws. He supports reforms that would establish a time limit on liability for most products and cap damages on small businesses. He has also worked to provide liability relief to small businesses by sponsoring legislation that limits punitive damages and eliminates joint liability for non-economic damages for small businesses that employ less than 25 people.

“John McCain also supports small business relief from ‘Superfund’ liability. He believes the law imposes too severe a penalty on small businesses. He supports changing the regulations to limit the liability of small businesses to the amount of pollution they directly caused to a site, and no more.” From Freedom Works

Back to 2007. From a physician website, MedPage Today:

Arizona Sen. John McCain said tort reform is a top priority. He’s supported caps on awards and expressed some support for a loser-pays rule. “We cannot let the search for high-quality care be derailed by frivolous lawsuits and excessive damage awards. … Liability reforms should eliminate lawsuits for doctors [who] follow clinical guidelines and adhere to patient safety protocols.”

McCain laments increased costs stemming from defensive medicine. “In every other industry when technological advances are implemented, costs to the consumer decreases,” he told supporters in South Carolina. “This is not the case in health care. … I can’t tell you the number of tests that all of us in this room have taken just so that doctors won’t be sued for malpractice.”

And while this is not necessarily a “tort reform” issue, McCain supports changes to our health care system which would take most self-funded health insurance plans OUT of ERISA pre-emption.

The senator does suggest he would change current pre-emption provisions in the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, when he says he would “give states the flexibility to, and encourage them to experiment with: alternative forms of access; risk-adjusted payments per episode covered under Medicaid; use of private insurance in Medicaid; alternative insurance policies and insurance providers; and, different licensing schemes for medical providers.”

ERISA adjustment is also implied by his call to “build genuine national markets by permitting providers to practice nationwide” and his proposal to “allow individuals to purchase health insurance nationwide, across state lines, to maximize their choices.”Obviously, in North Carolina, taking self funded health plans out of ERISA would have a “pro-plaintiff” benefit because self-insured entities would be subject to NC’s anti-subrogation rule. Clearly, this is an unintended consequence for our state.

Finally, according to AllBusiness.com, McCain has publicly lamented increased costs stemming from so called defensive medicine, where doctors allegedly over-cautiously order multiple tests in the hopes of avoiding any mistakes or liability. “In every other industry when technological advances are implemented, costs to the consumer decreases,” he told supporters in South Carolina. “This is not the case in health care…. I can’t tell you the number of tests that all of us in this room have taken just so that doctors won’t be sued for malpractice.”

Barack Obama on Tort Reform

As a lawyer and constitutional law expert, Obama has spoken favorably of civil litigators at times, but has also been noted in the press to be somewhat more critical of “trial lawyers.” While campaigning for the Senate in Illinois years ago, he said, “Anyone who denies there’s a crisis with medical malpractice is probably a trial lawyer.” [Unsubstantiated info ahead] Furthermore, it has been noted that Obama voted in favor of caps on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases when he served in the Illinois General Assembly. [NOTE: I pulled this quote from a business website doing a neutral review of the tort reform stances of the candidates. It was old (pre-nomination) and fairly balanced. Of course, there was no reference in the article. I’ve been questioned on this now, so I’m trying to verify the so-called votes. Frankly, I was suprised that Obama would vote for any type of cap given his Constitutional experience, so this could be my bad reporting compounding someone else’s bad reporting. Good thing I’m not a reporter!]

In 2005, Barack Obama voted for CAFA, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. Who voted against it? Hillary Clinton, Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy, Joe Biden, Barbara Boxer and other progressive Democrats. The Class Action Fairness Act was strongly supported by business groups like the US Chamber of Commerce.

The ABA describes CAFA in this way:

In a nutshell, the Class Action Fairness Act has two principal parts. One set of provisions establishes new procedural and substantive standards applicable to class action settlements. Some of these merely duplicate (or add little to) existing practice under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but others — such as new limitations on attorneys’ fees in coupon settlements and requirements that government officials be notified whenever a class action settles — are brand new.

In addition to the CAFA bill, Obama has taken a position on medical malpractice tort reform which focuses on improvements in patient care and lower error rates. In fact, Obama and Hillary Clinton co-authored an article in the May 25, 2006 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine, entitled “Making Patient Safety the Centerpiece of Medical Liability Reform.“

In conjunction with the publication of their article, Obama and Clinton introduced and co-sponsored the National Medical Error Disclosure and Compensation (MEDiC) Act of 2005, a bill that, in part, would have required hospitals to disclose errors to patients and would have also created a national patient safety database. The bill further proposed to create a Department of Health and Human Services program that would seek early compensation for patients and offer liability protections to doctors in exchange for their disclosure of errors and apologies. This legislation was never realized and died in 2006.

The Last Frontier: The Supreme Court of the United States

Other than the candidate platforms and positions, many would argue that the real “tort reform” is accomplished by appointing Judges who will take “tort reform” positions on legal cases. Justice John Paul Stevens (88 years old) and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (74 years old), are both considered to be left leaning and potentially ready to retire in the next four years.

About the Supreme Court, Obama has said in a July 7, 2007 speech “We need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”

McCain has said, “I tell you I will nominate only people who have a clear, complete adherence to the Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the bench. That’s who I’ll nominate to the U.S. Supreme Court.”

This article will not attempt to futher address the issue of Supreme Court appointments, though obviously the candidates would presumably appoint Judges who agree with their general philosophy on the law. Whether that position is “pro-consumer” or “tort reform” will be for the reader to decide.

I’ll update this article as I find more information. Obviously, John McCain has a long voting record, so there can be much more analysis of his voting positions than of Obama. I may also try to take a look at the positions taken by Biden and Palin, although, again, Biden will have a much deeper record than Palin.

—-Chris Nichols

Nichols Law Firm

The main insurer for physicians, NC Medical Mutual, has just announced that they MADE so much money last year, they are issuing a refund to doctors. And guess what? This is NOT a result of tort reform. We have had no major laws pass in our state which resulted in “savings.”

In fact, based upon actuarial studies, the reality appears to be that when lobbyists for the insurance companies were screaming for tort reform, what they were doing behind the scenes was RAISING premiums for physicains to create what I would call a “manufactured problem.” The doctors’ own insurance company was gouging them, and then asking them to donate money to “tort reform” causes, which of course, are insurance company lobby groups.

Looks like the physicians have finally reigned in their own insurance company by realizing that the “crisis”, if there is one, is mostly in the minds (and wallets) of the insurance industry.

from the News and Observer

N.C. insurer to pay dividend

Medical Mutual will also pay off debt as drop in malpractice suits boosts profit

David Ranii, Staff Writer

The state’s largest medical malpractice insurer says that fewer lawsuits filed against doctors will allow it to pay its policyholders a $3 million dividend — its first dividend ever.

Raleigh-based Medical Mutual Insurance Co. of North Carolina said it posted a 7.4 percent increase in profit last year as the number of lawsuits filed against its policyholders fell to 298 last year. That’s down from 326 in 2006.

In addition to paying the first dividend since the company was founded in 1975, Medical Mutual also plans to erase its $10 million in debt this year. And, over the next four years, it plans to refund $12 million in capital supplied by its policyholders in 2003 as part of a plan to shore up the company’s finances and stabilize its premium rates.

In recent years the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, whose members include the personal-injury attorneys who sue doctors for malpractice, has bashed Medical Mutual for charging rates that the lawyers’ group labeled excessive.

Medical Mutual’s CEO Dale Jenkins said the dividend and capital refund to shareholders demonstrates “we are a very good steward of the resources the [doctors] have provided to us. We recognize every day that it is their money.”

Medical Mutual hasn’t sought a rate increase from state regulators since 2005. The latest positive financial results will allow the insurer to hold rates steady again this year.

Medical Mutual’s dividend will be in the form of a credit that physicians receive when they renew their policies, said Jenkins. The average credit will be about 5 percent of the annual premium for most of the 6,300 North Carolina physicians who are policyholders. Medical Mutual is a mutual insurance company that is owned by its policyholders.

“We’re always glad to see a company … able to give money back to its shareholders,” said N.C. Insurance Department spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson.

Jenkins said the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen nationwide. In addition, Medical Mutual has taken steps aimed at limiting lawsuits. The company has established stringent underwriting guidelines in order to avoid insuring doctors it considers high-risk, Jenkins said. “We do not take all comers,” he said.

The company also sends out teams of nurses to assess doctors’ practices and recommend ways to minimize risks, he said.

Profit last year totaled $26.1 million, up from $24.3 million in 2006, Medical Mutual reported. Assets increased by $44.9 million, to $416.2 million.

_______________________________________

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

Contrubutory Negligence is an issue that people don’t know or care about, until they face the problem themselves. Basically, in NC, even if you are hurt by someone else’s negligence, if the other person can prove you are just a little bit to blame for your injury, you are barred from any recovery. That’s right. Someone else is 99.9% to blame, and you are barred from recovery.

Columnist Scott Sexton has written a series of excellent articles on the subject and really puts a human face on this convoluted and political issue. I highly recommend reading these articles.

I’ll also add this to the mix. One of the problems with contributory negligence is that it is so often a bar to people seeking legal representation. Lawyers who represent injured people know that they could spend years working on case and lose everything at trial simply because a jury felt the Plaintiff may have played some very small part in causing the accident.

Here are some the the previous articles by Sexton:

Contibutory Negligence: it’s “an insurance company’s dream “

“Never mind that Joshua was 7 years old and was within 3 feet of the curb, or that Logan was drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road. “By way of affirmative defense, Defendant Logan pleads the contributory negligence of the decedent Plaintiff Joshua Franklin Palomares-Beckles,” wrote Rodney Guthrie, Logan’s attorney. If a jury in North Carolina decides that you are even a tiny bit at fault in this sort of case, you are entitled to nothing under state law, under a concept called contributory negligence. “In general, I’d say contributory negligence is an insurance company’s dream,” said Walter Holton Jr., the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Beckles-Palomares. “

Wreck victim faces being victimized by outdated law

“After an automobile accident in New Hanover County involving his daughter, Ashley, a student at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Norris has become something of an expert on a legal concept known as “contributory negligence,” an outdated and completely unfair area of insurance law used only here and in three other states. That leaves option C. “Our insurance company is also using the contributory-negligence law claim that Ashley is limited in what we can recover,” Norris said.

‘There is no lobby for the little people’ in this state

“Just four states – North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama and Maryland – still hang on to the concept of contributory negligence, a relic from English Common Law. “

Don’t believe hype that law would increase insurance rates

By Scott Sexton

JOURNAL COLUMNIST

Scott Sexton
Email
Bio

On its face, insurance law – specifically a legal concept called “contributory negligence” – is something that only a serious policy nerd could love.

That is, unless (or until) you or someone you know gets hosed by that law. Then it’s not so boring.

Contributory negligence works like this: If you’re in an accident and deemed to be just 1 percent at fault, you’re not legally entitled to one red cent to cover your damages from the idiot (or his or her insurance company) who was 99 percent to blame.

Three recent columns explored some of the more outrageous abuses of this law. Possibly the worst was the insurance-company attorney who argued that a 27-year-old man killed by a hit-and-run driver in October 2003 while changing a flat tire in Orange County was partly responsible for his own death.

It’s a shameless, outdated blame-the-victim strategy. It also seems like an easy law to change.

Yet objections remain. The state, for example, could switch to a “comparative-negligence” system. If you’re 90 percent at fault, you (or your insurance company) pay 90 percent of the damages.

“Comparative negligence is a nightmare to apply. Few people agree on the percent fault they are assessed, it increases lawsuits, is a cash cow for lawyers, and raises everyone’s insurance rates,” wrote one reader who works in the insurance industry. “If you haven’t noticed, N.C. enjoys some of the lowest auto-insurance rates in the country.”

Good point. And it’s one worth exploring.

Low-rate state

North Carolina does indeed enjoy consumer-friendly auto-insurance rates – the sixth lowest in the country, according to the N.C. Department of Insurance.

That’s not, however, because of any sense of fair play by insurance companies nor because contributory negligence keeps costs down.

The credit goes to a man who next to nobody has heard of, state Insurance Commissioner Jim Long. He is basically the final word on insurance rates in North Carolina.

Every Feb. 1, the N.C. Rate Bureau – an umbrella organization representing insurance companies – files a rate request. The bureau then makes a rate recommendation. Actuaries and attorneys with the Department of Insurance negotiate any changes with the rate bureau. If there’s no agreement, then Long decides.

“It’s a pretty long and pretty dull process unless you are an actuary,” said Chrissy Pearson, a spokeswoman for the Department of Insurance.

Given that background, I figured that Long’s thoughts on the merits of contributory negligence versus comparative merits would be worth hearing.

You can read the rest of the article by going to the Winston-Salem Journal.

-Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

The video does a great job showing how giant corporations have twisted and distorted the truth about law suits in America simply to poison jury pools. They do this so they can continue to deny responsiblity for wrong doing, and basically “save a buck” at the expense of injured people who have done nothing to cause their own injuries.

It’s about 8 minutes long and worth the watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h85j1vNxd8A

or

_____________________________

Chris Nichols

The article below was written by a self-described conservative Christian physician who deeply questions the politics of taking away justice from injured people in the name of politics and for the goal of profitting “big business.”

This shows me that people are seeing that fairness and responsiblity are truly non-partisan issues, and that lawsuits, in and of themselves, are not “all bad.” In fact, lawyers and lawsuits have often been all that stands between the public and harm.

Remember the Little Guy
by Steven Hotze, M.D.

Shouldn’t companies and individuals who cause you harm be responsible for the damages they inflict?

You are probably aware of the lawsuits in the 1970s against Ford Motor Company and its Pinto automobile. Because of poor design, rear end crashes often caused the Pintos gasoline tank to explode into flames. Over 500 drivers lost their lives and thousands more were severely burned. Ford knew about this problem and that it would only cost $11 per car to repair but determined it was cheaper to pay the lawsuit settlements than recall the vehicles. Incredibly, Ford put their profits above the safety of their customers.

Because plaintiff attorneys were willing to file lawsuits on behalf of these injured individuals and families on a contingency basis and fight the multi-billion dollar Ford Motor Company, Ford paid hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments. Ford was also criminally charged with negligent homicide for having knowingly sold unsafe cars.

These lawsuits against Ford were based on product liability law which holds businesses responsible for any injuries caused by their products. The Ford lawsuits and resulting settlements sent a strong signal to the automobile industry. Safer cars have been the result.
Over the past decade, the Republicans in the Texas Legislature have passed a series of bills which have limited the liability of large corporations when they are found by a jury to have caused injury to their employees or their customers. This has me concerned and it should have you concerned as well.

Who wouldnt want limited liability for their actions? This is especially true of some large corporations which place their financial interests above the well being of their employees and customers.

Under current Texas law, it is hard to imagine that Ford Motor Company would have been required to pay out such a large amount of money in judgments as it did at that time.

Tort reform has dramatically limited the liability of businesses and individuals in Texas. The Texas Legislature has set limits on the amount that a business or individual can be required to pay in judgment to an injured party. No one likes the idea of frivolous lawsuits, but most individuals seem to agree that a remedy should be paid to an injured party commensurate with the damage.

Who does this current law benefit? It benefits the large corporations and the well financed who have deep pockets and the wherewithal to hire a bevy of defense attorneys. Their financial risk for shoddy workmanship and unsafe products has been dramatically reduced.

What about the small business owner or the individual with modest means? How will they afford the assistance of a lawyer to help them be fairly compensated for their losses?

As a physician and conservative, I have a healthy distrust for big government and big business. The conservative position requires accountability for actions. It appears to me that the pendulum for tort reform has swung too far in favor of big business.

Its time to remember the little guy.

by Steven Hotze, M.D.

_______________________

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

Every once in a while someone goes a little too far in trying to avoid jury service. Looks like this guy went overboard in his attempt to avoid service on a grand jury, which amittedly, can take a lot of time.

I think the Judge did the right thing here. Jury duty is one of the very few real things we can do to actively participate in our democracy.

BARNSTABLE, Massachusetts (AP) — A Cape Cod man who claimed he was homophobic, racist and a habitual liar to avoid jury duty earned an angry rebuke from a judge on Monday, who referred the case to prosecutors for possible charges.

Daniel Ellis’ excuses to try to get out of jury duty didn’t sit well with the judge.

“In 32 years of service in courtrooms, as a prosecutor, as a defense attorney and now as a judge, I have quite frankly never confronted such a brazen situation of an individual attempting to avoid juror service,” Barnstable Superior Court Judge Gary Nickerson told Daniel Ellis, according to a preliminary court transcript of the exchange.

Ellis, of Falmouth, had been called to court with about 60 other potential jurors for possible service on a 23-member grand jury.

On a questionnaire that all potential jurors fill out, Ellis wrote that he didn’t like homosexuals and blacks. He then echoed those sentiments in an interview with Nickerson.

“You say on your form that you’re not a fan of homosexuals,” Nickerson said.

“That I’m a racist,” Ellis interrupted.

“I’m frequently found to be a liar, too. I can’t really help it,” Ellis added.

“I’m sorry?” Nickerson said.

“I said I’m frequently found to be a liar,” Ellis replied.

“So, are you lying to me now?” Nickerson asked.

“Well, I don’t know. I might be,” was the response.

Ellis then admitted he really didn’t want to serve on a jury.

“I have the distinct impression that you’re intentionally trying to avoid jury service,” Nickerson said.

“That’s true,” Ellis answered.

Nickerson ordered Ellis taken into custody. He was released later Monday morning.

Ellis could face perjury and other charges.

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

Why? Well, the insurance industry has effectively “gagged” anyone from telling the jurors why the case is going to trial. Typically, the reason for that is that the insurance company who pulls the strings on the defendant, WANTS the case to go to trial, because they know that for every case that goes to trial, 99 just give up, and the insurance company gets to pay less than what is “fair and just” as the rules require.

Here are some of the “hidden” rules and insurance practices that you only learn about after you’ve been hurt by someone else’s negligence.

You Can Not Mention the Insurance Company at Trial

Under no circumstances can a Plaintiff mention the word “Insurance” in trial, even though the person who is being sued has insurance. You cannot mention Insurance, nor can your witnesses, including the doctors, police or anyone else who may testify for you. If you do, the judge will grant a “mistrial” and we will have to try the case over again.

NC Rule of Evidence: Rule 411. Liability insurance

Evidence that a person was or was not insured against liability is not admissible upon the issue whether he acted negligently or otherwise wrongfully. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of insurance against liability when offered for another purpose, such as proof of agency, ownership, or control, or bias or prejudice of a witness.

Insurance is available in at least 99% of all auto accident cases that go to trial. But, the insurance industry has lobbied the legislature so diligently that it has created a set of court rules that absolutely prohibits the lawyers representing injured people from telling the jury the truth that the little old lady in the defendant’s chair has had no choice in whether she is sitting there or not. She cannot settle the case even if she believes you deserve everything you are asking for.

The insurance company is completely in control of how much to offer the injured person, whether to settle the claim or not, and what they should contest in the lawsuit. So, even if the little old lady sitting in the defendant’s chair wanted to settle the lawsuit for the same amount as what the injured person is requesting, the insurance company won’t offer the money.

In North Carolina, the Plaintiff has virtually no right to sue an insurance company for improperly denying a claim or delaying the payment of what is due. Again, effective political contributions, and legal maneuvering by insurers have resulted in these rules.

Its cheaper to deny the claim than settle.

Believe it or not, insurance companies have saved Billions of dollars since the mid 1990s, by improperly denying claims, and otherwise forcing litigation by paying far below the jury verdict average to settle claims. Frivolous defenses to legitimate claims have resulted in an increase in litigation, against people insured by these companies. This is part of a deliberate claim handling program implemented by McKinsey & Company, the same consulting firm that set up Enron’s business model, at many of the nation’s largest insurance companies. See “Record Insurance Profits” Article

But, in jury selection, jurors often mention that if the injuries are real, the case should have settled with the insurer. That is exactly what the insurance company is hoping for. It doesn’t matter if they offered $0.50 on a claim worth $500,000. The jury will never know, because the lawyers are prohibited from ever mention the settlement negotiations during the trial.

McKinsey & Company counted on this when they told Allstate Insurance in the mid 1990’s to quit treating people with “Good Hands” and instead treat them with “Boxing Gloves.” When Allstate forced more litigation and posted record profits, the rest of the insurance industry followed their lead. It is now standard operating procedure in the insurance industry to spend multiple times what a reasonable settlement would be to fight the claim, simply to prove to injured people and their lawyers that filing a claim for injuries is more trouble than it is worth. Read a Transcript of Anderson Cooper’s Interview with one of Allstate’s Victims

That is because the end result is that most lawyers will not take the cases, and people will not file the claims themselves. These improper denials have led to a huge spike in bankruptcies in the United States, the leading cause of which is an inability to pay for medical bills. So, when jurors turn injured people away, everyone but the person at fault, and their insurer pay for the damage. Instead, the jurors take the financial burden themselves through higher taxes to pay for the bankruptcy. For more, see the article entitled “In Tough Hands” in BusinessWeek.

Interestingly, the stories don’t mention that witnesses already have the ability to “affirm” to tell the truth when being “sworn in.” This was an accomodation for people who’s faith did not allow them to “swear” on the bible.

It only makes sense that a witness can provide their own religious text upon which to swear they will tell the truth. I guess the point of the excercise is that if you truly beleive in the teachings of the bible, you would not want to offend God by lying. So if you don’t belive in the Bible as holy scripture, shouldn’t you be able to swear on something you do believe in?

Honestly, I think this decision is only news because it involves the Quaran and Muslims. Had we been talking about the King James v. the New King James v. English Standard v. New American Standard v. Revised Standard (RSV) v. New Revised Standard, etc, no one would have cared. Of course, many folks argue over the “validity” of each of those translations of the bible.

I think Judge Ridgeway saw through the politics of the controversy, and realized that anything that promotes the real search for truth, would suffice. 

From the Greensboro News-Record

Muslims can now swear on the Quran when called as witnesses in North Carolina courtrooms, a Wake County judge ruled Thursday.

The decision represents a victory for the American Civil Liberties Union of North Carolina , which sued the state after two Guilford County judges rejected an offer from an Islamic center to provide county courthouses with free copies of the Quran.

“The highest aim of every legal contest is the search for truth,” Wake Superior Court Judge Paul Ridgeway wrote in an 18-page opinion. “To require pious and faithful practitioners of religions other than Christianity to swear oaths in a form other than the form most meaningful to them would thwart the search for the truth.

“It would elevate form over substance.”

The Guilford County judges argued that North Carolina law only allowed oaths to be taken on the Bible. Ridgeway agreed that a phrase in the law governing oaths, “Holy Scriptures,” refers to the Bible, but he cited other case law that would allow a Muslim to swear on the Quran.

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

Realistically, if a sexual predator is being “smart” they will have no real identifying information on their MySpace profile. Given the absolute ease of setting up free and virtually untraceable email accounts, I don’t see any way for MySpace and the Attorney General’s office to “trace” predators to MySpace. About the only thing that i can think of would be to require sexual predators to register their ISP Providers and addresses, and trace the original source of the profile that way.

I’ll be interested to see if this actually “eliminates” any predators. It is one thing to prevent predators from coming near schools and libraries. The Internet is just so unregulatable, and is essentially one “big” play gorund for kids, and those who seek them.

MySpace to share sex offender data with states
By MARGARET LILLARD
Associated Press Writer

RALEIGH, N.C. – Faced with legal demands from several state attorneys general, MySpace.com said Monday it will immediately begin sharing data on the registered sex offenders it has identified and removed from the popular social networking Web site.

MySpace balked last week when attorneys general from eight states, including Ohio, demanded it provide data on how many registered sex offenders are using the site and where they live.

The company said federal privacy laws required the states to file subpoenas or other legal requests before it could release the information. MySpace general counsel Mike Angus said company officials met with North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper and Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal last week to sort out the details of those requests.”We hope to get requests from every state,” Angus said. “From day one, we have preserved all the information in the hopes of getting these requests.”

MySpace, owned by media conglomerate News Corp., obtained the data from Sentinel Tech Holding Corp. The companies partnered in December to build a database with information on sex offenders in the United States, and Angus said MySpace has already used the database to remove about 7,000 profiles out of a total of about 180 million.

The companies “developed ‘Sentinel Safe’ from scratch because there was no means to weed (sexual predators) out and get them off of our site,” Angus said.

Last week, attorneys general in North Carolina, Connecticut, Georgia, Idaho, Mississippi, New Hampshire, Ohio and Pennsylvania asked for the Sentinel data. The company initially refused, saying the federal Electronic Communications Privacy Act required the states to file a subpoena or similar legal request before it could release the data.

North Carolina filed a civil investigative demand Monday, and states including Ohio, New York and Connecticut also pursued subpoenas. Blumenthal said his subpoena “compels this information right away – within hours, not weeks, without delay – because it is vital to protecting children.”

Cooper said the information from the Sentinel system could potentially be used to look for parole violations or help in investigations. He said lawmakers in North Carolina are considering legislation that would further restrict access to social networking Web sites, including one that would require parents’ permission for minors to set up a profile.

READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

Associated Press

SMITHFIELD, N.C. – North Carolina now has an updated sex offender registry Web site for citizens who want more specific information about where child molesters, rapists and other criminals live.

View the new website here: 

N.C. Sex Offender Registry: http://www.ncfindoffender.gov

The upgrades, announced Monday by Attorney General Roy Cooper, allow anyone to receive e-mail alerts when a sex offender moves in a neighborhood or near a school. The Web user also can view maps that highlight how many registered sex offenders live in within a 1-, 3- or 5-mile radius of a specific address.

“Families and neighborhoods will be able to use these new tools to plan for their safety,” Cooper, a Democrat, said in a news release. “Knowing more about where offenders live will help communities stay vigilant about safety.”

Instead, they got me.

I am posting a link to my PowerPoint presentation for those in attendance who wantde the “paper” copy of my talk. Here is the link: Ahlborn PowerPoint Slide show

Thanks for all the great questions!

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

This post is very important, and I hope that anyone coming to this webpage reads the whole post!

The America Online (AOL) website titled “Most Outrageous Lawsuits.” Appears in the money and finance section of AOL and is also prominently displayed on the AOL home page. The “most outrageous lawsuits” section contains mistruths and has been consistently debunked by web sites like www.snopes.com. Snopes is the leading website that actually does research into “urban legends” and provides the truth behind the distortions. It you have ever heard of the “Stella awards” (fake awards for “outrageous lawsuits”), here is the specific post from Snopes that proves the Stella awards are lies, or distortions: http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

The public has seen this propaganda before. The “crazy lawsuits” they describe come directly from groups like Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), groups whose sole mission is to dismantle the civil justice system and eliminate accountability for corporate negligence. In the past, when such front groups have provided examples of “cases,” they haven’t even been real.

AOL is preying on an unsuspecting public that assumes what is posted on its site is news, all to make the case that they, and other negligent corporations, should not be held accountable for wrongdoing in our courts.

There is good reason for AOL to invest its resources in the misinformation campaign to eliminate the right of Americans to seek justice. In the past few years, it is the civil justice system that has been the last resort for shareholders and investors to hold AOL accountable for their negligence. The following are just a few examples of the trouble AOL has gotten in:

• Just this week AOL agreed to pay $246 million to compensate theUniversityofCaliforniafor losses to their pension and endowment funds after the company’s stock prices plunged in 2001-2002. The University alleged that AOL inflated it stock price prior to its merger with Time-Warner by misrepresenting its sales, revenues and subscriber numbers.
• On February 26, 2007, Time Warner reached agreements to pay $405 million to settle lawsuits related to past accounting problems at AOL.
• On February 7, 2007, AOL reached a $105 million settlement with the California State Teachers’ Retirement System that claimed that AOL executives and bankers had artificially boosted the value of its stocks prior to buying Time Warner.
• In December, 2006, AOL settled a securities fraud case for $50 million with the state ofAlaska.
• In 2005, Time Warner settled a $2.4 billion securities fraud lawsuit stemming from their misstatement of advertising revenue on the eve of its merger with AOL.

The American Association for Justice has made several attempts to get this propaganda pulled from the website but AOL has refused. You can help, so consider taking the following steps:

If you are a member of AOL tell them to stop running this feature on their website by posting a comment;

Call the Chairman and CEO of AOL, Randy Falco, at (703) 265-1000 and ask him to take down the information;

Circulate this information to others who will take action; and

Send to any legal and political blogs you frequent.

Insurance Companies would like the public to think that all lawsuits are “frivolous”. “Frivolous” lawsuits get weeded out of the system by judges and lawyers (who refuse to bring them) LONG before they get to court. In NC, every case that gets filed goes through multiple levels of independent review, from the moment the law suit is filed.

The most important of those levels of review is the “motion for summary judgment” or “motion to dismiss.” In every case, the lawyer for the defense can come into the court room, and tell the judge “this case is crazy, please dismiss it.” And Judges dismiss cases all the time. Only cases where the Judge believes there is a reasonable argument survive.

After the motions to dismiss, in NC, in every lawsuit with a value over $10,000 ALL parties are required to attend a mediation. At mediation, an experienced lawyer or judge makes the parties face reality and encourages settlement.

Here is what NC’s Judicial Website says about mediation:

Most citizens think of cases filed in our courts as coming to a close only after long and bitterly fought trials. After all, that is what they read in newspapers and see on television. However, the truth is that most cases filed in our State’s civil Superior Courts are never actually heard by a judge or jury. Instead, they settle on the parties’ own terms. Too frequently, that settlement occurs on the courthouse steps — just before the trial is set to begin and the plaintiff and defendant have endured a long, sleepless night or nights. The Mediated Settlement Conference Program is designed to offer parties, with the help of their attorneys and a mediator, an opportunity and the support they need to settle their cases earlier

In my experience, 99% of cases that do not settle, do not settle because the Insurance Company, who hires the lawyers to defend the defendant, takes an unreasonable position on settlement. That position is usually “we won’t pay a dime because we didn’t do it’, or “we will only offer you a very small amount, but we will NEVER apologize for what we did.”

Most lawsuits would go away with an apology. That may be hard to believe, but in many cases it is true.

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com