Illinois Deserves the Truth

Hey “Tort Reform” Groups – Time to Go Away Now!

Cross posted from The Pop Tort by Andy Hoffman

Check out this article in the Madison County/St. Claire Record (a newspaper owned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) for a great description of how Obama’s win last night is fabulous news for the civil justice system—only be forewarned, because it’s written by someone from the right-wing (and obviously out-of-touch) Manhattan Institute you’ll have to translate the semi-Orwellian language.  So, when you read something like “Efforts to restore fairness and balance to the nation’s courts could take a giant step backward,” know that you’re actually reading something like “Cruel efforts to deny injured consumers access to the courts may be headed for the scrap heap!”

While you’re at it, also check out this entertaining UPI article that shows how the U.S. Chamber of Commerce (recent blog links here and here) is now trying to make nice with Obama, U.S. Senators and other members of Congress it tried to defeat.  The Chamber went from “deploying nearly 600 staffers to key states, spending millions of dollars on ads, sending 15 million emails and 6.5 million pieces of mail, and making more than 6 million phone calls,” to curling up like a lapdog, pledging to “play a helpful role in the transition process.” 

Let’s hope their “helpful role” consists of going away now. 

Pot Calling the Kettle Black

Big Business spends a lot of time and money whining about the need for "tort reform", but that doesn’t stop them from turning around and quietly using the courts themselves.  Lately, we need look no further than a trio of homegrown Chicago-area corporations that evidently think the civil justice system is great (as long as they're the plaintiffs, that is).

• Deerfield-based pharmacy chain Walgreen Co., which filed a suit against drug manufacturer Wyeth.

• Schaumburg-based iPCS Inc., a telecom company suing affiliate Sprint Nextel.

• Riverwoods-based Discover Financial Services, the credit card company that recently settled its suit against Visa and Mastercard.

Let's see...pharmaceuticals, telecoms, and credit card companies.  Yeah, those industries just love the civil justice system.  Visit The Pop Tort ‘hypocrisy’ page for more examples corporate duplicity.

Complete Immunity from Lawsuits – The Lasting Damage of the Bush Administration

Cross post from The Pop Tort by Andy Hoffman

A fantastic new investigative report from the American Association for Justice (AAJ) called “Get Out of Jail Free: A Historical Perspective of How the Bush Administration Helps Corporations Escape Accountability”  finds, through documents obtained from a series of Freedom of Information Act requests, that “multiple federal agencies were repeatedly ordered to usurp state law and undermine consumer protections,” for the purpose of giving total immunity to corporations instead.

This issue – preemption – is one of the hottest civil justice topics today.  The anti-consumer U.S. Supreme Court could soon give its blessing to this massive Bush Administration effort, which was also highlighted today by  the Wall Street Journal.  Check out the article and video detailing how the Bush administration intends to spend its last days in office rewriting “a wide array” of federal rules that could prevent product-safety suits by injured consumers for years to come…  According to the article,

The administration has written language aimed at pre-empting product-liability litigation into 50 rules governing everything from motorcycle brakes to pain medicine. The latest changes cap a multiyear effort that could be one of the administration's lasting legacies, depending in part on how the underlying principle of pre-emption fares in a case the Supreme Court will hear next month.....The use of rulemaking to protect corporations from product liability was discussed from early in the Bush administration, said former Bush domestic-policy adviser Jay Lefkowitz, who was instrumental in the process.

 

Illinois Deserves the Truth about Med Mal Caps

The St. Louis Post-Dispatch published our letter in yesterday's op-ed page.

Arbitrary malpractice caps only hurt victims

Regarding "Illinois' med mal law on trial" (Aug. 18): Amid all the arguments over the upcoming Supreme Court decision on Illinois' medical malpractice caps, the people whom caps really hurt too often are forgotten. At their core, "caps" prevent the victims of tragic, avoidable medical mistakes from seeking fair compensation for a lifetime of harm.

Caps weaken the authority of our judges and jurors by placing a one-size-fits-all label on victims' tragedies. They apply no matter how egregious the misconduct or devastating the injury. And they have been shown to disproportionately hurt senior citizens, minorities, women and children. Clearly, juries are better able to determine compensation in individual cases than politicians in Springfield, Ill.

Yet, "tort reformers" ignore these brutal consequences and instead cite discredited rankings compiled by big business and its front groups. All this really does is shift the focus away from innocent victims, the people whose lives are changed forever by no fault of their own.

Discussion should get to the heart of the issue and explore how these caps actually limit patients' constitutional rights. 

Fortunately, the Illinois Supreme Court has seen through tort reformers' distortions and twice has struck down similar cruel limits. We hope it continues to uphold the Illinois constitution and allow injured children and their families to be compensated adequately for the unimaginable harm caused by gross medical negligence.

Illinois News Roundup

We posted the other day about the abuse lawsuit against the Belleville Diocese, and stressed keeping victims' needs and prevention a top priority.  Yesterday, the jury erased any worries in a speedy decision for James Wisniewski, the abuse victim, by awarding him $5 million.  Now, let’s hope the decision means the diocese won't let anything like this happen again.

...

The State Journal-Register recently ran an article about a lawsuit filed against the state, by local politicians and the Springfield Chamber of Commerce.  Today, their op-ed page featured a great letter by Bruce Beeman pointing out the hypocrisy of business groups attacking trial lawyers while quietly filing lawsuits themselves.  (This earlier article provides some more details on the the Springfield Chamber’s involvement in the suit).

...

Last year, two Orland Park car dealerships sent fraudulent mailings out to at struggling car owners.  Lisa Madigan’s new suit says they violated consumer protection laws and should repay consumers for each violation.

...

This Granite City Press article seems like a harmless case for medical helicopters, until you get to the end, where the writer quotes someone who blames the courts for doctors' high malpractice insurance rates.  “Tort deformers” are really good at this.  They repeat these lies long enough and pretty soon people start believing it and talking about it as if it's established fact.  Unfortunately for them, it simply isn’t true (see here, and here...and here!).

More Blabber From a Fat Cat Mouthpiece

Since not every state elects its judges like Illinois, the question of whether we should reform our process is always floating around.  “Tort deformers” like the Illinois Civil Justice League (ICJL) like that we elect judges, but they’d also like to tweak the system to benefit their Big Business cronies.  Of course, they always mask these sneaky ideas as changes that everyone should want.  Take for example ICJL president Ed Murnane, who wrote about this issue on his blog the other day.  Let’s look at what Murnane had to say this time, and then take a peek behind his smoke screen.

Last year, the Illinois Civil Justice League circulated — not widely enough — a proposal for judicial selection in reform in Illinois that continues the practice of electing judges, but makes several modifications.

We can still make the process more business-friendly, but the most important thing is that we keep the elections!  After all, Big Business dumps loads of money into judicial campaigns each election cycle.  We spend more money financing these races than any other group.  In fact, a 2007 report by the Justice at Stake Campaign showed that business lobbyists spend over twice as much as our favorite scapegoats, trial lawyers, and way more than any union (check out page 18 in the report).

One [modification] is to remove judicial elections from the partisan Republican vs. Democrat battleground.

We hate the fact that some of our guys can’t compete with a (R) behind their name.  Removing party labels would prevent so many Dems from voting straight ticket.

Perhaps the most significant [modification] is to change the election day for judicial officers from the November ballot to the Spring ballot when most Illinois communities are conducting elections for municipal officials and school officials.

Why?  Well, low voter turnout is great for us (they openly admit this), and fewer people vote in the spring.  Plus, with fewer high profile races, spring elections mean more available media space for our “tort deform” ads!

Great…

Actually, we agree with Murnane on one point: there are too many special interests involved in today’s judicial races (whether he actually means this is another question).  Just don’t expect the ICJL to admit that corporations are the worst offenders.  Whenever this issue comes up, “tort deformers” never fail to blame lawyers (you know, for standing up for consumer interests and all).  In reality, it isn’t even close to a fair fight.  Read this story from Monday’s Tribune.  It pretty much sums up what’s wrong the system: like this true story of how special interest financing can hurt Illinois consumers.

The behavior of courts that consistently issue narrowly divided opinions can be significantly influenced by a change of one or two seats.  That dynamic was at work in Illinois in 2004 when $9.3 million was spent in the Supreme Court contest between then-Circuit Judge Lloyd Karmeier and then-Appellate Judge Gordon Maag. Karmeier won the most expensive court race in recent U.S. history with the heavy financial assistance of business and insurance interests hoping to obtain a reversal of a $456 million damage verdict against State Farm Insurance. After taking his seat on the bench, Karmeier declined to recuse himself from considering the case and later voted with the court majority to reverse the damage award.

That’s the kind of story that should send a chill down your spine.  As perhaps the last place where we can stand up and hold powerful corporations accountable for wrongdoing, our civil justice system demands that judges be unbiased arbiters.  It's frightening to imagine fat cat special interests trying to raid this last consumer safeguard.

Chamber Brain

Cross posted from The Pop Tort by Joe Consumer

You gotta feel sorry for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its “tort reform” branch, the Institute for Legal Reform, don’t cha?  I mean here they are, spending more lobbying money than anyone else, yet even while they had complete control of all three branches of government, couldn’t get all they wanted, and now, they’ve lost their grip on the U.S. Congress and it seems like the political landscape keeps getting worse and worse.  So maybe the little wires in their little brains are starting to short out. 

How else do you explain a web site like this, which supposedly discusses “plaintiff’s trial lawyer earmarks to expand liability.” 

First, can I say something obvious here?  For the entire time the Chamber’s bought-and-paid-for allies controlled Congress (not to mention the presidency), consumers’ rights were routinely threatened – and damaged – by incredible corporate-earmarking sleaze. Like when, in 2002, Sen. Bill Frist engineered the insertion of a provision into the Homeland Security bill that would protect Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical giants from lawsuits over a preservative in infant vaccines that has been connected with autism.  And that act just barely touched the surface with Frist.

Second, another obvious question.  Why is it that when the Chamber does its dirty immunity business, it’s to benefit its corporate members.  But when bills are introduced that deal with the rights of average people  - you and me – that’s just a “trial lawyer” issue.  Is this PR strategy getting SO OLD, already? 

So now let’s take a look at some of these so-called “plaintiff’s trial lawyer earmarks.”  FISA - one of the biggest and most controversial political issues in the last month.  Trial lawyers had nothing to do with this. 

Or how about legislation to give military members the same access to the courts as every other US citizen who has been injured by medical malpractice? An issue about protecting our troops from preventable harm and what incredible nerve of the Chamber to oppose this? 

The Chamber even uses trial lawyers to criticize a bill that would ban Chamber members who engage in wrongdoing from forcing secret settlements that cover up public health and safety problems. Kudos for trial lawyers for supporting this, but it’s a huge consumer protection issue that’s been around for years and shame on the Chamber for opposing it.

I’m not big fan of Robert Novak.  But I am sorry he has a brain tumor and hope he gets better soon.  Maybe the Chamber also has a brain tumor, which might explain this behavior.  In which case, all I can say is, pedestrians, get out of the way!

Cross posted from The Pop Tort by Joe Consumer

You gotta feel sorry for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its “tort reform” branch, the Institute for Legal Reform, don’t cha?  I mean here they are, spending more lobbying money than anyone else, yet even while they had complete control of all three branches of government, couldn’t get all they wanted, and now, they’ve lost their grip on the U.S. Congress and it seems like the political landscape keeps getting worse and worse.  So maybe the little wires in their little brains are starting to short out. 

How else do you explain a web site like this, which supposedly discusses “plaintiff’s trial lawyer earmarks to expand liability.” 

First, can I say something obvious here?  For the entire time the Chamber’s bought-and-paid-for allies controlled Congress (not to mention the presidency), consumers’ rights were routinely threatened – and damaged – by incredible corporate-earmarking sleaze. Like when, in 2002, Sen. Bill Frist engineered the insertion of a provision into the Homeland Security bill that would protect Eli Lilly and other pharmaceutical giants from lawsuits over a preservative in infant vaccines that has been connected with autism.  And that act just barely touched the surface with Frist.

Second, another obvious question.  Why is it that when the Chamber does its dirty immunity business, it’s to benefit its corporate members.  But when bills are introduced that deal with the rights of average people  - you and me – that’s just a “trial lawyer” issue.  Is this PR strategy getting SO OLD, already? 

So now let’s take a look at some of these so-called “plaintiff’s trial lawyer earmarks.”  FISA - one of the biggest and most controversial political issues in the last month.  Trial lawyers had nothing to do with this. 

Or how about legislation to give military members the same access to the courts as every other US citizen who has been injured by medical malpractice? An issue about protecting our troops from preventable harm and what incredible nerve of the Chamber to oppose this? 

The Chamber even uses trial lawyers to criticize a bill that would ban Chamber members who engage in wrongdoing from forcing secret settlements that cover up public health and safety problems. Kudos for trial lawyers for supporting this, but it’s a huge consumer protection issue that’s been around for years and shame on the Chamber for opposing it.

I’m not big fan of Robert Novak.  But I am sorry he has a brain tumor and hope he gets better soon.  Maybe the Chamber also has a brain tumor, which might explain this behavior.  In which case, all I can say is, pedestrians, get out of the way!

To all of those Naysayers: Chicago Rocks!

I am so tired of all those "tort reformers," who go on and on about businesses not wanting to locate in Chicago, because courts actually hold big business accountable for hurting consumers. (Yeah I am talking about you ATRA and you US Chamber of Commerce, among others.)

Well here is just another example of how they are wrong!

MillerCoors is locating headquarters in Chicago.

The company, a joint venture of Molson Coors Brewing Co. and SABMiller PLC, will employ 300 to 400 people and is still finalizing a location downtown.

"The decision to select Chicago as the location for our corporate headquarters was made to achieve our goal of becoming the best beer company in America by having access to an attractive base of talent, transportation and business resources," MillerCoors President Tom Long says in statements from the state and World Business Chicago, the city’s economic development arm.

Ummm, am I missing something?  Where is all of the hype about courts being unfair to Big Business.  Just as we have been saying -- it just isn't there. 

Check out CJ&D-IL's fact sheet on the Illinois Economy.

Federal Agencies letting manufacturers off the hook

With special interest and big business spending millions of dollars lobbying to take away the courts from consumers - you would think that federal agencies should do their part to protect consumers and hold wrongdoers accountable.  But if you thought this... you would be WRONG.  Unfortunately, as this Chicago Tribune article points out, federal agencies, under the Bush Administration, are being criticized for doing their fair share of screwing over consumers and protecting their Fat Cat friends.  These agencies are "rule making" people out of the right to hold wrongdoers accountable in the civil justice system, by making it tougher (or in some cases impossible) to bring suit against a manufacturer if the product was approved by a federal agency.

As Joan Claybrook, a former head of National Highway Traffic Safety Administration who now runs Public Citizen, a consumer advocacy group, put it:

"Liability puts a burden [on companies] to be very careful ... and not cut corners,"... "Without that, manufacturers will literally get away with murder."

When she ran NHTSA, Claybrook said, the agency did not try to regulate for every situation. Instead, she said, it assumed companies also did their own testing to ensure the safety of their products. If they didn't, they could pay the price in court.

"Federal standards are not all-encompassing," she said. "Liability fills the gaps."

Even though these rules are bad, Congress has the power to step in and pass laws preventing these agencies from cutting off consumers from the courts. It is unlikely that this administration would sign them, since they were the ones prodding these agencies to make these awful rules in the first place.  Let's hope that Congress and the new administration (whomever it will be) acts to prevent manufacturers from getting away with murder. 

To read more about this issue click here.

Casualties of Tort War: Consumers

Cross posted from The Pop Tort by John Guyette

With few exceptions, like Stephanie Mencimer’s piece in the Washington Monthly a few years ago, the media have a terrible tendency to spit back talking points provided to them by corporate groups and to talk about so-called “tort reform” like the whole thing is just a money battle between lobbyists – instead of dealing with the constitutional rights that are at stake or the impact on average people of weakening this system, not to mention our health and safety as a nation. 

The New York Times sometimes stood apart from this and actually used to challenge industry groups that orchestrated this so-called “tort reform” movement to serve their rich and powerful corporate members, many of whom have been found liable for egregious misconduct. (See here or here)

But no more.

Yesterday the Times ran a lengthy article entitled, "To the Trenches - The Tort War Is Raging On," citing without comment brazenly-biased and bogus corporate surveys and insurance industry consultant “reports” that have been widely trashed (for instance here, here and here), and making it seem like the only people affected by laws that take away rights of injured consumers are the attorneys who represent them, or to the extent attorneys are affected, the only thing they care about are their fees.  What an outrage.

Here's what goes on in the life of most trial lawyers: A legitimately injured person walks into their office.  The attorney looks into it and makes an offer to an insurance company, usually forced to leave a message on voice mail.  What happens?  Nothing.  No one even calls back. Welcome to the world of most trial lawyers. That’s why they are forced to file most cases, as insurance companies drag out these cases to egregious lengths.  Where is that scenario described?

(It should be noted that the Center for Justice & Democracy twice asked to speak to this Times reporter and was blown off, receiving not so much as a courteous “no thanks” to two emails.  That’s a first.)

From the story:

In a Washington ballroom bedecked with flags honoring explorers who overcame oceans and mountains to pursue international trade, Thomas J. Donohue congratulated the assembled modern merchants — a group of executives, lobbyists and lawyers — for challenging a more mundane adversary.

"It took guts, bravery and vision to get behind what must have seemed like an insurmountable task — taking on the powerful trial bar," said Mr. Donohue, the chief executive of the United States Chamber of Commerce. "We have succeeded beyond our expectations."

Yes "a group of executives, lobbyists and lawyers" sitting around congratulating themselves for limiting the rights of catastrophically-injured children truly does take "guts" and "bravery."

The story goes on to paint a picture of uncertainty as to who the winners and losers are in the tort war, once again leaving average consumers out of it.

Hello, where are the normal everyday people in all of this?  We're over here! Hello?