So how is this relevant to “tort reform” and the pending legislation called Senate Bill 33 in the North Carolina House? Well, this law, proposed by Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R- Lincolnton), takes away an essential ingredient of Liberty of the people of North Carolina- The right to a jury trial.

Rep. Rhyne’s bill says that when a citizen is hurt or killed by a negligent emergency room physician, or nurse, or hospital worker, that injured person has no right to sue for negligence. Further, the bill says that when a citizen of North Carolina is injured or killed by a defective drug manufactured ANYWHERE in the world, that citizen can not sue the manufacturer if the drug has been “approved” by a state or federal agency. Taking away the “right to redress” or “the right to sue” is the same as depriving someone the right to a jury trial. If you can’t sue, you can’t get a jury. The doors to the court house are closed to these people.

The Halifax resolves speciically address the right to trial by jury. In the Resolves the authors talk about the King seizing “Ships belonging to America” which “are declared prizes of War” and that the colonies have been deprived the legal right to get these ships back or enter into a process of determining the legal rights to the ships: “And …the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried.”

Rep. Rhyne’s proposed legislation takes us back to the days of being subjugated to the King and the Crown. Of course, one might make the distinction that under Rhyne’s law, the State of North Carolina is not “profiting” from the people. That is true, but Rhyne’s law is even WORSE.

Under Rhyne’s proposals, the State of North Carolina not only denies “obtaining redress” but does so to the financial advantage of international drug companies and for-profit hospitals and corporate physician groups.

This law is a glaring example of “Big Government” taking fundamental liberties of THE PEOPLE and redistributing the spoils of war to anti-liberty, big monied cronies.

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.”

Senate Bill 33 takes away the trial by jury of people injured by negligent doctors and also those hurt or killed by defective drug products. These people are completely deprived of their liberty to hold bad actors accountable for their wrongs.

Why is the NC GOP rolling back our rights to pre-independence days?

Why did certain colonists remain loyal to the King? Scholars say one unifying characteristics of Loyalists to the Crown during the Revolution was this: They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain, often with business ties. Also known as MONEY. 

How much did Rep. Jonathan Rhyne take from Big PHARMA and Medical Lobbyists?

PLEASE: preserve your liberty and rights. Call Anyone on this list and tell them to vote NO to SB33: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlinyCcVT4eGdGZLZU95VTREcW12RXBoLXlKU2paSWc&hl=en#gid=0

The below is from: http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/halifax-resolves

HALIFAX RESOLVES

Excerpted from “Historical Miscellanea: An Early History of North Carolina,” North Carolina Manual, 1991-1992, published biennially by the NC Department of the Secretary of State.

North Carolina, on April 12, 1776, authorized her delegates to the Continental Congress to vote for independence. This was the first official action by a colony calling for independence. The 83 delegates present in Halifax at the Fourth Provincial Congress unanimously adopted the Halifax Resolves, which read as follows:

The Select Committee taking into Consideration the usurpations and violences attempted and committed by the King and Parliament of Britain against America, and the further Measures to be taken for frustrating the same, and for the better defence of this province reported as follows, to wit,

It appears to your Committee that pursuant to the Plan concerted by the British Ministry for subjugating America, the King and Parliament of Great Britain have usurped a Power over the Persons and Properties of the People unlimited and uncontrouled and disregarding their humble Petitions for Peace, Liberty and safety, have made divers Legislative Acts, denouncing War Famine and every Species of Calamity daily employed in destroying the People and committing the most horrid devastations on the Country. That Governors in different Colonies have declared Protection to Slaves who should imbrue their Hands in the Blood of their Masters. That the Ships belonging to America are declared prizes of War and many of them have been violently seized and confiscated in consequence of which multitudes of the people have been destroyed or from easy Circumstances reduced to the most Lamentable distress.

And whereas the moderation hitherto manifested by the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried, Your Committee are of Opinion that the house should enter into the following Resolve, to wit

Resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the other delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, resolving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out.

The Halifax Resolves were important not only because they were the first official action calling for independence, but also because they were not unilateral recommendations. They were instead recommendations directed to all the colonies and their delegates assembled at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Virginia followed with her own recommendations soon after the adoption of the Halifax Resolution, and eventually on July 4, the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was signed. William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and John Penn were the delegates from North Carolina who signed the Declaration of Independence.

Punitives clarified that no attorney fees will be paid on punitive 75% paid to state.

2.3a. Med mal changed from 250 per defendant to 500k total not per defendant.

Change page 7 and 8. Products

Provisions in products bill apply only to Drugs no other products. Same as Michigan

Page 8 lines 44 and 43
6-21.1. Change. Subsection 3.
Exceeded highest offer 30 days before commencement of trial.

Page 2 sexton 1.3 sub d and e
Omitted previous and now restored.

Old section 2.4 DSO in med mal has been deleted.

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.

I believe that House Bill 542 may “look” good for business but have the unintended consequence of making North Carolina the WORST place for manufacturing in the entire United States. I’ve inserted a few comments below in [BOLD] brackets.

Rep. Stam, Rep. Weiss, and Rep. Murray:

I am a lawyer, like each of you, and I would like to call to your attention what I think is a major unintended consequence of HB 542. I called each of your offices today to discuss this issue.

HB 542 destroys the right of a NC manufacturer and their insurance company to subrogate on catastrophic losses caused by defective products.This hurts manufacturing, business, and insurance interests in North Carolina.

Please read the below example:

Products Liability Immunity Destroys Business and Insurance Subrogation: HB 542 gives immunity from suit to any company that produces a faulty product that has been “approved for sale” by any State of Federal regulatory agency. This bar would apply to insurance subrogation claims against the original tortfeasor and therefore bars insurance companies and the self-insured from recouping losses caused by faulty products.

EXAMPLE.Power Plant Explosion: A North Carolina power company buys a defective industrial boiler from a Chinese (or any) manufacturing company. This product is “approved” by several state and federal agencies as required by law.” [Does this sound like the Apex Chemical explosion?]

That boiler explodes and spreads toxic ash over a 3 mile radius. The environment is polluted, people are made sick, and the business site is shut down. The NC business itself suffers a $300 Million dollar business and property damage loss and is sued by the State and citizens for the toxic ash injuries. The insurer for the power company (or self-insured company itself) must pay for the business loss, claims of injuries and property loss, but would be prohibited by HB542 from seeking a recovery from the negligent Chinese manufacturer. The State of North Carolina would be prohibited from seeking compensation for the loss to the environment and the toxic clean up costs. This will increase the cost of insurance for business and the State and possibly force insurers to stop insuring for loss from product defect.

HB542 uses the following definitions: [See page 8 of HB542] ” (1) “Claimant” means a person or other entity asserting a claim”

“Product liability action” includes any action brought for or on account of personal injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formulation, development of standards, preparation, processing, assembly, testing, listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or labeling of any product.” (Emphasis added)

“No manufacturer or sellershall be held liable in any product liability action if any one of the following apply:”

Under this very simple language above, businesses that suffer catastrophic losses due to product defects will NOT be able to recoup those loses.

Moreover, what will be the effect on Business Insurance Policies? A standard loss policy would have language like the following:

“If we pay a claim under your policy, we will take over your right to recover that amount from any other person or organization. You agree to cooperate with us and not do anything that will interfere with our chances of recovery”.

Insurers would be subrogated to the right of the North Carolina company. Because subrogation is “the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand, or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities,” the North Carolina Company would have no right to recover under HB542 and thus the insurance company would be subrogated to nothing.

North Carolina will be the ONLY state in the nation with such a law.

This raises many difficult questions:

1. Will insurance companies issue large commercial policies to North Carolina manufacturers know there will be no right to subrogate in failed products cases? Can businesses operate without this insurance?
2. Will North Carolina manufacturers receive insurance rate increases due to the higher cost risk for North Carolina claims?
3. Will manufacturers avoid locating in North Carolina because they will not be protected from defective products they purchase for their business?
4. Will insurance products for consumers be impacted by the lack of subrogation for faulty manufacturing? Will home owner insurance rates increase due to the number of fires caused by defective products where there will be no subrogatable interest for the insurance company?
5. Why would a manufacturer choose North Carolina over 49 other states knowing that it had no protections from faulty products within its own facility?

I ask that you stop HB542 before it further erodes North Carolina’s business economy.

Chris Nichols

________________________________

(update) 

A non-hypotehtical Example of Products Liability Subrogation In Insurance

Here is an excellent example of how subrogation works in the context of product liability claims. This is a blog post from Cozen O’Conner, a national law firm that helps insurance companies recover funds from manufacturers of defective produts when those products cause damage which is insured. Here is a link to their full blog post. Lasko Recalls 4.8 Million Box Fans

The case involved a massive barn fire at a breeding farm in Hondo, New Mexico. Six world class race horse breeding stallions were killed in the fire and the barn itself was totaled. Cozen O’Connor represented over sixty sophisticated horsemen clients who had ownership interests in the stallions, and their insurers. The insurers for the horses and the barn went to great lengths to preserve the fire scene, and as a direct result of their diligence the experts were able to examine each electrical device in the barn and identify the fatal flaw in the Lasko fan motor.

On March 24th (long after the fire) the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of 4.8 million Lasko box fans. The recall notice reports “an electrical failure in the fan’s motor poses a fire hazard to consumers.” The CPSC cites a “barn fire resulting in extensive property damage” as a basis for the recall.

If this fire had occurred in North Carolina under House Bill 542, the lawyers at Cozen O’Conner would have been barred from seeking recovery from Lasko. The insurer would have paid out millions and not been reimbursed by the negligent manufacturer of the fan. And who would absorb the cost of the unreimbursed expenses? Anyone who buys insurance.

_______________________________________

Hopefully this will make a difference. This bill is not just about people injured by defective products, but also business.

This is an actual photo of the Apex, NC plant explosion at a chemical storage facility.

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.

 The Bill was filed, all of 18 hours before it was 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 COMMITTEE 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

Here is the language from the proposed law:

In any medical malpractice action arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish services pursuant to obligations imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd for an emergency medical condition as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1), the defendant health care provider shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of fact finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider’s deviation from the standard of care required under subsection (a) of this section constituted gross negligence, wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to change, alter, override, or otherwise affect the provisions of G.S. 90-21.14, 90-21.15, 90-21.16, or 20-166.”

42 U.S.C. § 1395dd is EMTALA , the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and it says:

(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor (1) In general

If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—

(A) within the staff and facilities available at the hospital, for such further medical examination and such treatment as may be required to stabilize the medical condition, or

(B) for transfer of the individual to another medical facility in accordance with subsection (c) of this section.

(e) Definitions

In this section:

(1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—

(A) a medical condition manifesting itself by acute symptoms of sufficient severity (including severe pain) such that the absence of immediate medical attention could reasonably be expected to result in—

(i) placing the health of the individual (or, with respect to a pregnant woman, the health of the woman or her unborn child) in serious jeopardy,

(ii) serious impairment to bodily functions, or

(iii) serious dysfunction of any bodily organ or part; or

(B) with respect to a pregnant woman who is having contractions—

(i) that there is inadequate time to effect a safe transfer to another hospital before delivery, or

(ii) that transfer may pose a threat to the health or safety of the woman or the unborn child.

Legal Slight of Hand

It certainly looks like the lobbyists for the medical community knew exactly what they were doing when they crafted this portion of the proposed law. The EMTALA definition is a little bit “loosey goosey” (mostly because it was intended as a way to be broad and make sure hospitals did not “dump” people who were uninsured in the middle of giving birth).

Because of this broad definition of emergency, and because our statute integrates that definition, most people undergoing any serious treatment in a hospital: delivering a baby, having a heart attack, bleeding profusely, etc, will be defined by EMTALA as being “in an Emergency” and thus, ANYONE treating them will have IMMUNITY.

I think the legal inquiry will be:

“When the alleged negligence took place, could the patient have been transferred to another facility pursuant to EMTALA?”

If yes—> no immunity
If no —-> Emergency under EMTALA = Immunity

Do you want just about every Obstetrician to have immunity if they make an error?

Also, because this “definitional slight of hand” is not as obvious as saying “doctors delivering babies have immunity” will the Medical Malpractice Insurance Companies use this “gray area” to say “Well, the Legislature didn’t give you outright immunity, so we can’t lower the insurance rates of OBGYNs because we don’t actually know if the immunity applies. We’d have to look at it on a case by case basis.”?

Bingo! The doctors will raise an “EMTALA Immunity Defense” in EVERY case, creating a cottage industry for Insurance Defense Lawyers to bill hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Medical Malpractice Carriers will continue to charge too much money to the Doctors while enjoying the “Immunity Defense” that will probably kill most claims, and the babies who are born maimed or injured or die- well, they will have no right to a jury trial.

Please contact a member of the Committee and voice your opinion on HB 542. Say no to IMMUNITY!

NC House Select Commitee on Tort Reform Contact Information

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.

So as part of the political debate, Obama is talking about changing health insurance, but he is also talking about medical malpractice reform. Some of my fellow trial lawyers are getting stirred up because we don’t think that extending coverage of health care ought to also limit an injured person’s access to justice.

Here are some links which discuss Obama’s comments in the last few days:

Obama Talks Up Liability Reform
Politico
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/23783.html
 
In Pitch to AMA, Obama Paints Mixed Picture
Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/15/AR2009061501744.html
 
Cost Concerns as Obama Pushes Health Issue
New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/health/policy/16obama.html?hpw
 
Obama Calls Cost of Healthcare a Threat to Economy
Chicago Tribune/LA Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-obama-ama16-2009jun16,0,1354461.story
 
I tend to agree with the gist of the Politico article: Obama has to keep all options on the table and speak in terms that ever player in the debate feels are near and dear to their interests.

I think the debate will be rational, and because of that I think that the data which show that very little of the overall cost of health care has anything to do with malpractice lawsuits will not be ignored. There are things that can be done to decrease the cost of lawsuits. Call it reform or not, that’s up to you.

I commonly request that each side to a malpractice suit be limited in the number of expert witnesses who can be used on a certain subject. Almost universally the lawyers for the Doctors will not voluntarily limit the number of expert witnesses. This increases the costs to defend these suits. There is one liability reform I’m fine with implementing.

Chris Nichols

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

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.

In the ultimate “what comes around goes around,” lawyers who represent business interests are griping about how tough it is to get justice in business versus business cases. The article also cites how, despite massive reforms, Medical Malpractice Insurance companies keep rasing rates, despite paying out fewer claims. This once again proves the folly of limiting rights based upon political motivations.

Read Roy’s Post “The Trouncing of Trial Lawyers”

Chris Nichols
Nichols Law Firm

You don’t have to look very far on the Web to find websites devoted to eliminating your right to recover fair and just compensation for the carelessness of another individual. Websites like Overlawyered try to convince everyone that almost every law suit filed is frivolous, and that every jury verdict is pushing the insurance industry and businesses toward bankruptcy.

The Tortellini, “Bites of Law and Politics, with sauce”

Finally, a new website, The Tortellini , has been started by Stephanie Mencimer, a contributing editor of the Washington Monthly and a former investigative reporter for the Washington Post.

The Tortellini does a great job of debunking the myths of tort reform, and also highlights some of the personal injury lawsuits filed by the mostly Republican members of Congress who, in their “jobs” are constantly trying to eliminate the rights of other citizens to seek fair compensation. Looks like these tort-reformers have no problem filing lawsuits when they think they have been injured. Check out her section on Hypocrites.

Mercimer looks at the false propaganda and quickly and efficiently shreds it, revealing the truth behind the fiction of a “tort crisis” in America. I encourage every consumer lawyer with a Blog or a Website to link to The Tortellini. 

— Chris Nichols
Link to Nichols Law Firm Website