This week’s National Law Journal published a letter I submitted in response to a tone-deaf op-ed from the U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform.
The U.S. Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) has the sole mission of restricting the ability of individuals harmed by negligent corporations to access the civil justice system. One ILR board member, Johnson & Johnson, has not only plowed money into this cause, but also has a sordid legal history that underscores the hypocrisy of ILR and its corporate financers.
Today in a Roll Call op-ed, AAJ President Gary M. Paul calls out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and its Institute for Legal Reform (ILR) for their latest attack on the civil justice system. Mr. Paul writes:
And in its typical self-serving fashion, ILR has seized on the hardships of millions of unemployed Americans, claiming that this country needs “jobs, not lawsuits,” despite no actual evidence to bolster its nonsensical claims.
ILR’s board members run the gamut of industries — from chemical makers and drug companies to Wall Street banks. And they have more in common than just their commitment to closing the courthouse door on injured Americans. The corporations that finance ILR have long, storied histories of using the courts for their own agendas — to gain the upper hand against their competitors, customers and even each other.
Today also marks the ILR’s annual summit – a daylong strategy session dedicated to discussing ways to undermine the civil justice system.
To commemorate the event, AAJ released a report, Do As I Say, Not As I Sue, exposing ILR board member companies that hypocritically use the courts to advance their own agendas, while at the same time advocating legislation that would close the courthouse doors to anyone who would hold them accountable for their wrongdoing.
A medical malpractice provision included the Senate GOP jobs bill has gained another conservative critic over constitutional concerns. In an interview with Think Progress, Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) described federal efforts to limit state medical malpractice laws as “constitutionally problematic:”
LEE: Congress needs to be very careful when it enters into a uniquely state law area like tort. So tort reform needs to be undertaken very carefully insofar as it’s done at the federal level. There are some tort suits that proceed in federal court and, um, but if we venture much outside of that, particularly if we get into telling state courts how to interpret state law, that can be constitutionally problematic.
KEYES: [State tort reform] might not be justified as far as the enumerated powers go?
LEE: Correct, correct. . . . [tort reform] is something that can be addressed in some way at the federal level, but most of it needs to be done at the state level.
Following last month’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on asbestos trust that was practically commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has released a report on the issue; of course, requested by House Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith for the U.S. Chamber.
According to reports, at their annual meeting in San Francisco the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) have been trumping out the misleading talking point that limiting the ability of patients to seek justice in the courtroom will help ease the health care crisis in this country. This notion is just simply not supported by the actual facts. Preventing medical errors from occurring in the first place will reduce costs and more importantly, save lives.
The USA Today reported on a Senate invetigation just released that uncovers for-profit home health companies "gaming" the Medicare system to increase profits:
Three home health care companies manipulated the Medicare system by charging for unnecessary services, according to an investigation released Monday by the Senate Finance Committee.
Rick Perry likes to talk a big game about the tort reform he’s passed in Texas, but his rhetoric is rarely ever backed by reality. The “loser-pays” legislation that he is so fond of touting not only has nothing to do with job creation, but the bill itself serves as little more than a cheap talking point that he can use on the campaign trail. As Reuters reports:
This week’s Archives of Internal Medicine has a survey of primary care physicians on what factors influence their own practicing habits and whether patients are getting too much or too little care.
One of the major headlines has been that 76% of primary care physicians claim malpractice concerns lead them to practice more aggressively. However, the actual survey has multiple contradictions that paint a much different picture than has been reported.