Posts Tagged ‘asbestos’

New at Point of Law

There are all sorts of new posts over at our sister website Point Of Law. Attorney Leah Lorber, who’s appeared on this site in the past, has just joined for a week’s worth of guestblogging contributions, including posts on a Mississippi Supreme Court case undoing the joinder of 264 asbestos cases and a Kentucky punitive award against Ford Motor (in a “park-to-reverse” transmission case). On medical malpractice, Ted Frank examines the benefits of the damage limits approved by Texas voters, Jim Copland discusses my WSJ op-ed on the Kerry campaign’s ideas for reform, and I link to an informative paper by Richard Anderson of the Doctor’s Company. Law professors Lester Brickman and Richard Painter, both experts on the ethics of contingency fees, have now completed their featured discussion of the issue.

Plus lots more, including posts by me on the ABA’s plans to push reform of jury trials; how contingency-fee litigation by the state of California is straining U.S. relations with France; Eliot Spitzer, the comparison-shopper’s friend; two posts (here and here) comparing the American way of litigation with that prevailing in other democracies; how liability law affects the way certain products smell; and who you can’t trust to explain the new overtime regulations.

New at Point of Law

Over at our sister website Point of Law there are new posts galore, including Jim Copland on “light” tobacco suits and Ted Frank on second-guessing of the FDA by liability actions; links to MedPundit on asbestos, Robert Samuelson on the AGs’ global warming lawsuit, David Bernstein on the “Friends” harassment suit, and a not notably favorable review of the new documentary “The Corporation”; and employment law topics ranging from Wal-Mart litigation to Sarbanes-Oxley whistleblowing to the Griggs disparate-impact standard. And, of course, the centerpiece is the featured discussion now underway between Profs. Lester Brickman and Richard Painter on contingency fee reform.

“Asbestos X-rays rechecked”

“A new look at X-rays used to help win billions of dollars for asbestos victims detected abnormalities in only 4.5 percent of the X-rays — not in 96 percent, as medical experts intitially testified. The study by Johns Hopkins University radiologists found that medical experts who testified on behalf of plaintiffs in asbestos suits almost always found something suspicious on their X-rays, whether it was asbestos dust or a likely malignant tumor.” The study appeared in this week’s Academic Radiology, a scientific journal. (Bill Scanlan, Rocky Mountain News (Denver), Aug. 5; Reed Abelson, “Study Raises Questions of Witnesses”, New York Times, Aug. 4). See, among many other entries on this site, Jan. 21. More: the journal Nature weighs in (Emma Marris, “Asbestos study suggests bias in experts”, Aug. 5). Yet more: GeekPress, MichMedMal.

Alien Tort Claims Act

…discussed by Jim Copland at Point Of Law, here and here. Also discussion of tobacco litigation (here and here), asbestos bankruptcies and Wal-Mart. And of course my discussion with Michael Krauss of whether gun-suit pre-emption by Congress is compatible with the Constitution continues on the featured discussion page, with one more day left to go before we wrap things up.

Baron & Budd

Ramesh Ponnuru at National Review Online (“Robber Baron?”, Jul. 15) thinks the Department of Justice would be warranted in opening a RICO probe of the Dallas-based firm based on the contents of a detailed statement attached by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) to a report of the Senate Judiciary Committee, exploring at length the allegations concerning Baron & Budd’s practices in asbestos litigation (PDF) (see pp. 81-184 and specifically 86-137). For much more, see Jun. 17 and the many links from there.

Products we don’t see

“Another measure of the magnitude of the high cost of lawsuit abuse is the number of products and services that have been withdrawn from the U.S. market due to fear of liability, irrationally applied. Volvo, for example, makes an integrated child booster seat that is not sold in the U.S. because of product liability concerns….

“Similarly, fears of silicone implant lawsuits in America caused Japanese silicone makers to quit production of silicone coating for hypodermic needles, which reduces the pain of an injection. The director of one of these firms stated, ‘We’re sure our product is safe, but we don?t want to risk a lawsuit.’…

? Monsanto Company abandoned the planned production of a safe, biodegradable, and effective reinforcing phosphate fiber that would have been a substitute for asbestos.

? Union Carbide decided to forego developing a suitcase-sized kidney dialysis unit and offering intravenous equipment.

? Sunstar, a health-spa manufacturer, decided not to market a safety device due to a liability-related increase in its insurance costs. The product would have set off an alarm every time the cover of a spa was opened. Because the product was a safety device, only one insurance company was willing to write a policy.

— Excerpted from Steven B. Hantler (DaimlerChrysler Corporation), “The Seven Myths of Highly Effective Plaintiff’s Lawyers”, Manhattan Institute Civil Justice Memo #42, Apr. (PDF) (more on paper)

John O’Quinn for Texas governor?

The Houston-based mass tort specialist, who has long played a prominent role in these columns for his exploits in asbestos, tobacco, silicone implants and most recently fen-phen (Apr. 28, Feb. 26 and many more), is now being talked of by activists as a potential Democratic candidate for governor of the Lone Star State. (W. Gardner Selby, “Democrats appear to be in no rush to challenge Perry for governorship”, San Antonio Express-News, Jun. 15). One factor helpful to him: last fall (see GregsOpinion.com, Oct. 25) Texas Democrats elected as their chairman San Marcos attorney Charles Soechting, who happens to practice at none other than the law firm of O’Quinn, Laminack & Pirtle.

Madison County medical malpractice numbers

Madison County has its deserved reputation as a “judicial hellhole” because plaintiffs recognize that its judges are friendlier to questionable class actions and asbestos cases, leading it to become a magnet jurisdiction for these actions. (See Apr. 15; Apr. 5; Jan. 5 and links therein; John Stockinger, “Advocates call for reform of Madison County legal system”, Alton Telegraph, Jun. 9.) Now, the Astroturf trial lawyers’ group “Victims and Families United” (Feb. 20) tries to defeat that perception by trumpeting some statistics about medical malpractice in the region. Previously, the group had tried to suggest there was no medical malpractice crisis, despite the fact doctors were leaving the area by the dozens, by pointing out the low number of verdicts in the area; of course, verdicts are a small fraction of payouts to lawyers in settlements. So the trial lawyers have responded by making up some numbers, and trusting that the press won’t delve too deeply into the claims.

By manipulating a couple of denominators, the trial lawyers’ group purports to show that settlement payouts are average for the state. The Madison-St. Clair region has 4.2% of ISMIE’s $270 million in payouts in 2003, they say, and 4.2% of the population; therefore, payouts are supposedly in line with the rest of Illinois. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch uncritically reports these numbers, as well as uncritically calling the trial lawyers’ group a “victims’ rights group.” (William Lamb, “Data do not justify Metro East’s malpractice reputation, group says”, Jun. 10).

But the numbers are bogus. ISMIE doesn’t insure “population”, it insures doctors, and doctors per capita are lower in Madison and St. Clair Counties than elsewhere in the state; off the bat, one would expect lower payout rates for these counties if they were typical for Illinois. Worse: the $270 million denominator is fictional. Using the actual denominator of $226 million (see 2003 ISMIE Annual Report at 25) or $234 million (John Stockinger, “Victims group disputes claims of insurance crisis”, Alton Telegraph, Jun. 11), and the Madison/St. Clair per capita number (a number that already understates the extent of the problem) turns out actually to be 116% to 120% of the statewide average–a number that can be found nowhere in the press coverage. (Patrick J. Powers, “Claims here mirror state”, Belleville News-Democrat, Jun. 12).

At least the Alton Telegraph balances it with other statistics that tend to show the fiction: average payment to plaintiffs in the area jumped from $276,000 to $495,000 between 2002 and 2003. In the past five years, ISMIE has paid out $33.5 million in verdicts, settlements and expenses, while earning only $29.6 million from Madison/St. Clair County-area premiums.

Ohio reforms asbestos, silica litigation

A breakthrough? With Gov. Robert Taft’s signature, Ohio has now enacted the nation’s first legislation establishing medical guidelines for eligibility to file lawsuits over exposure to asbestos and silica (see Sept. 13, Nov. 12). Claimants not ill enough to meet the criteria will have their names placed on an “inactive docket” and will be allowed to proceed with suits if their physical condition worsens. The bill was a major objective of business and insurance groups and faced stiff opposition from trial lawyers, who’ve vowed to challenge it in court. (Jim Provance, “Taft signs bill curbing asbestos suits”, Toledo Blade, Jun. 4; “Taft signs law limiting lawsuits over lung damage from silica”, AP/Ohio News Network, Jun. 2). See also opinion pieces: Doug Bandow, “Asbestos Liability Should Be On Domestic Reform Agenda”, Investors Business Daily/Cato Institute, Feb. 20; “Finding an asbestos compromise”, Copley/TownHall, Apr. 26; Dana Joel Gattuso, “Asbestos Litigation Choking Courts with False Claimants”, Heartland Institute Environment News, May 1). More: Point of Law, Aug. 20.

Asbestos bankruptcy shenanigans

In 1994 “Congress fiddled with the bankruptcy code in a way that allowed trial lawyers to exploit asbestos bankruptcies. It works like this: In a normal bankruptcy, a creditor’s voting weight is mainly determined by how much he’s owed. But thanks to the 1994 change, all asbestos ‘creditors’ (claimants) are treated equally.” A dying cancer patient gets the same vote as someone with no detectible health impairment at all. “It didn’t take long for tort lawyers to figure out how to game this system. The leading asbestos law firms team up and pool their unimpaired plaintiffs (who each get a vote), draw up a plan that gives the bulk of the money to their clients, and then outvote the other creditors.” Once in control, the lawyers can begin in effect running the affairs of the company in ways that provide them with further benefits, including cutting themselves large fees for their administrative and dealmaking services. (“The latest asbestos scam” (editorial), WSJ, Jun. 1)($$) See also Mar. 15-16, 2003.