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.

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

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

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