New Jersey doctors bet big and lost (see Nov. 4, Nov. 5) hoping that a $2 million investment in this fall’s campaign would lead voters to throw out the trial-lawyer-allied Democrats. And now their intended targets “are doing what winners do here: Gloating, and plotting revenge. … Now, chest-thumping Democrats plan to inflict some pain and suffering payback on the medical profession.” “It’s one of the basic rules of politics: If you’re going to engage in an all-out assault, you’d better make sure you’re going to win,” said Assembly Majority Leader Joe Roberts. “Deep down, [Marlton pediatrician Michael Falk] never believed the legislature would pass caps anyway. Why? Because many lawmakers are lawyers whose campaigns rely heavily on donations from fellow lawyers. But what really raises the doctor’s blood pressure is the suggestion that the MDs should have stayed silent. Since when, he asks, are democratically elected officials in the business of punishing their constituents for exercising their rights?” (Monica Yant Kinney, “Doctors paying price for exercising a right”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 16; Caitlin Gurney, “Campaigning costs state’s doctors”, Nov. 14)(& welcome readers of DynamoBuzz, a weblog about New Jersey politics and other subjects, which says some awfully kind things about us, calling us “one of the hidden gems of the Internet … chock full of information about our legal system run amok”)
Posts Tagged ‘politics’
The judges’ friend and the $225,000 swivel chair
Well-reported New York Times piece on local attorney Ravi Batra, who “for much of the past decade … has been a particularly potent force in the clubby corridors of New York City courthouses. He played a role in picking State Supreme Court judges. Lawyers seeking an edge in the unfamiliar world of Brooklyn courts hired him as their guide. Judges who controlled court appointments — where lawyers typically manage the assets and welfare of the elderly, the young or of troubled companies — gave him 150 of these, worth more than $500,000 in fees.” In one case, involving “a wealthy 94-year-old woman with Alzheimer’s disease”, Batra nicked the woman’s estate for $84,753 in fees: “The investigators noted that he charged $100 for each of 80 short phone calls and never listed their subject matter.”
Keep reading and clicking through the fourth and last page of the story to reach what may be the most piquant Batra exploit of all, his lawsuit against the hapless owners of a Brooklyn furniture store after he fell out of a swivel chair they sold him. “He said the fall had left him with herniated disks, loss of height, worn-down teeth, heart damage and frustration and anger that ‘leaks out in certain relationships,’ according to court papers.” He wanted $80 million, not only for pain and suffering “but also for a patio bar and a game room with table-tennis and air-hockey tables ‘to permit activity without injury or waste of travel time,’ the papers said.” Eventually he settled for $225,000 on the claim. But lawyers for the furniture store weren’t told at the time that Batra was friendly with Manhattan judge Diane Lebedeff, who heard the case and who issued a number of rulings in Batra’s favor: for example, she gave him several court appointments, including the lucrative case of the woman with Alzheimer’s. Both Batra and Judge Lebedeff deny improper influence (Kevin Flynn & Andy Newman, “Friend of the Court: Cozying Up to Judges, and Reaping Opportunity”, New York Times, Nov. 11). More: for Batra’s side of the story, see the comments section on Legal Reader’s Nov. 11, 2003 post. Update Nov. 15, 2004: Batra sues TV’s popular “Law and Order” saying it defamed him by portraying him as a crooked attorney in a fictionalized but recognizable episode; Apr. 15, 2005: Judge Lebedeff censured.
Election results
Tort reformers did well in Mississippi elections, with GOP challenger Haley Barbour toppling incumbent Gov. Ronnie Musgrove (D) and Republican Lt. Gov. Amy Tuck handily fending off a challenge from trial-lawyer-legislator Barbara Blackmon (Julie Goodman and Patrice Sawyer, “Republican challenger unseats Musgrove”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Nov. 5; Andy Kanengiser, “GOP’s Tuck breezes to victory over Blackmon”,
Nov. 5). The Democrats did hold onto the state’s attorney generalship, however. Meanwhile, doctors campaigning for malpractice reform (see Nov. 4) suffered stinging defeats in Pennsylvania, where Democrat Max Baer beat Republican Joan Melvin for a seat on the state supreme court, and New Jersey, where Democratic followers of Gov. Jim McGreevey solidified their hold on the state legislature, in part by outspending their rivals four to one. (“Democrat Baer defeats Melvin for top Pa. court”, AP/Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 5; Tom Turcol, “N.J. Democrats secure control of legislature”, Nov. 5).
Malpractice key issue in NJ, Pa. races
“In New Jersey, where state-level candidates usually campaign over issues such as property taxes and school funding, the No. 1 issue is now medical malpractice — if political fund-raising totals are any indication.” Doctors are throwing themselves into state politics and are so passionate about the issue that they’re actually outspending trial lawyers by a wide margin. (“Malpractice Issue Draws Most Funding in N.J. State Races”, BestWire/HIMSS (Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society), Oct. 28). Pennsylvania physicians are up in arms as well, hoping to make their voices heard in a key state supreme court contest between Republican Joan Orie Melvin and Democrat Max Baer (Carrie Budoff, “This time, physicians are players in election”, Philadelphia Inquirer, Nov. 3; Marian Uhlman, “As doctor workforce ages, a fear of shortage”, Oct. 12). In Massachusetts, nearly 1,000 doctors descended on the statehouse last spring attired in white coats, demanding malpractice reform (David Kibbe, “Liability insurance hikes scaring off some doctors”, Ottaway/New Bedford Standard-Times, Oct. 6). See also “Tort-reform law could cure ills of malpractice” (editorial), Rockingham News, Oct. 31 (New Hampshire)(suggesting that recent Texas reforms serve as model).
“Arnold’s agenda”
The governor-elect said many of the right things about litigation reform, though both friends and foes are still guessing as to how serious his commitment is. “Before the recall, the influential trial lawyers lobbying group, the Consumer Attorneys of California, had warned of judicial doom under Schwarzenegger … [CAOC president Bruce] Brusavich] worked hard to keep Schwarzenegger out of office, raising nearly $2 million from trial lawyers for Davis and Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante. … Brusavich expects Davis will sign three more plaintiffs-supported bills — one modifying the statute of limitations in toxic torts, one prohibiting pre-dispute arbitration in labor contracts, and one allowing causes of action for labor code violations — before he leaves office.” The litigation lobby also wants Davis, who’s been filling judicial vacancies at a feverish clip, to fill all the rest before leaving. Not if Arnold has his way: “Schwarzenegger Wants Davis to Stop Filling Posts and Signing Bills” reads a Friday morning headline (John M. Broder, New York Times, Oct. 10) (Jeff Chorney, The Recorder, Oct. 9).
Update: s. 17200
It looks like there may be competing voter initiatives relating to California’s Unfair Competition Law (see Aug. 27, Jul. 22). While bipartisan legislative attempts to reform the notoriously overbroad Section 17200 have failed, the Civil Justice Association of California is looking into a possible voter initiative for reform. In response, a trial lawyers’ organization is threatening a voter initiative to expand ? 17200 liability to individual executives. The lengthy San Francisco Chronicle story includes extensive discussion of the Trevor Law Group scandal, where a law firm used ? 17200 to shake down thousands of businesses for $20 million with frivolous lawsuits (see Aug. 4, Jul. 28). (Bernadette Tansey, “Battle brews over consumer protection in state”, Sep. 28). Update Oct. 26: initiative campaign launched.
Update: something burning in Mississippi
The series of unfortunate occurrences continues in the Magnolia State: “An early morning fire at former Judge John Whitfield’s law office may have destroyed some documents he was preparing to use in his defense of federal fraud and bribery charges, his lawyer said. Authorities said the fire remains under investigation, but a private fire investigator hired by Whitfield concluded it was arson.” (Beth Musgrave, “Whitfield’s office burns”, Biloxi Sun-Herald, Sept. 16; Jerry Mitchell, “Lawyer says house fire an act of intimidation”, Jackson Clarion-Ledger, Sept. 16; WLOX, Sept. 15)(via Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy). For background on the Mississippi judicial investigation, see Jul. 27, Aug. 19 and links from there.
Last month, the same newspaper reported that “Mississippi Supreme Court officials were seen shredding documents as federal prosecutors flooded the high court with subpoenas for judges’ tax forms, records of the cases over which they presided and how cases are assigned”; but a spokeswoman for the court denied that any documents were shredded that were responsive to the subpoenas, and Chief Justice Edwin Pittman called the allegations a “deliberate and false attack being waged against the Supreme Court of Mississippi by people with intimate knowledge of the workings of the court.” Pittman also said “there has been no unusual document shredding at the court and that the court’s computer system is able to retrieve any written communication.” (Beth Musgrave, “Witnesses: documents shredded”, Aug. 21; “Chief Justice: ‘Deliberate attack waged against court'”, Aug. 22; Pittman statement; “Allegations need to be investigated” (editorial), Hattiesburg American, Aug. 23). See also Jerry Mitchell, “FBI questions law clerks on rulings in high court probe”, Jackson Clarion Ledger, Aug. 29.
“N.C. Senate approves medical malpractice bill”
Interesting medical malpractice reform bill passed in the North Carolina Senate just before Hurricane Isabel (which is about to take out my power now) hit –supported by Democrats and opposed by Republicans. “Pretrial reviews in malpractice cases would come from a three-member panel appointed by a judge but with input from lawyers in the case. Panel recommendations would be entered into evidence, and a plaintiff or defendant who took a case to court despite a negative recommendation and still lost would have to pay attorney fees to the opposing side.” Insurers and Republicans seem to be unhappy with the creation of a state insurance fund, increased reporting requirements for insurers, and the lack of a damages cap. (Scott Mooneyham, AP, Sep. 16; “AIA: NC. Senate Med-Mal Bill Lacking”, Insurance Journal, Sep. 18). “A special House committee will consider the medical liability issues, but the full House will not act on any measure before May.” (Matthew Eisley, “Malpractice changes offered”, The News & Observer, Sep. 17). Game theory scholars will be interested to note that the bill requires juries who find negligence to choose between a plaintiff’s proposed damages figure and a defendant’s proposed damages figure–what is sometimes called “baseball arbitration.” This effectively constrains rational trial attorneys to perform a balancing act and make reasonable requests–the higher the demand (or the lower the counter), the more reluctant a jury to go along. This alone should encourage settlements by narrowing the difference between parties. In conjunction with what will likely be a persuasive pre-trial panel expert report, it is hard to imagine circumstances when attorneys would ever let a case get to a jury verdict.
Before he reached the Senate
The Boston Globe looks into Sen. John Edwards’s career before he came to Washington and finds “he was more than just a practitioner of medical malpractice law. He was one of its most prominent specialists, stretching the reach of the law for nearly two decades. But he also came to personify some of the alleged excesses that reformers have sought to curb.” Among them: emotionally manipulative trial arguments, selection of deep pocket defendants and suits on behalf of victims who had contributed to their own victimization, including a woman who committed suicide and whose survivors successfully sued the hospital with Edwards’ help. (Wendy Davis, “Edwards’s career tied to jury award debate”, Sept. 15).
Texas tort reform update
The Texas tort reform initiative is unique because it seeks to accomplish reform through constitutional amendment; on some other occasions, plaintiff-friendly judges have struck down state tort-reform measures by claiming that they conflict with state constitutions. Early voting for tomorrow’s election shows larger-than-normal turnout. (Kris Axtman, “Texas vote tests a new tactic to curb jury awards,” Christian Science Monitor, Sep. 12). Lara Squires writes at length in support of Proposition 12 in the Fort Worth Business Press, noting a 400% increase in some insurance costs:
[Dr. John] Durand is an interventional cardiologist with Consultants in Cardiology of Fort Worth. He says that in a three-year period, his 12-physician group?s insurance premiums have gone from $125,000 a year to close to $700,000 a year, despite an impeccable claims history.
?We had been setting aside funds for our practice growth. We were going to build an outpatient congestive heart failure clinic, to meet the needs of a growing population facing this major health problem,? Durand said. ?Instead, we had to cut back on services, freeze hiring of more medical staff and scrap plans for the outpatient center. It?s the first time in 35 years of our practice that we?ve identified a need in the community and haven?t been able to implement the solution.? (Sep. 10).
One unintended consequence of the ballot initiative: a backlog of over a thousand medical malpractice cases filed in Harris County in a three-month stretch in an effort to beat the deadline that would be imposed by the amendment. (AP, “Backlog of malpractice cases results from deadline,” Sep. 11; previous Overlawyered discussion Sep. 6).
SEP. 14 UPDATE: The constitutional amendment passes, 51-49. (Kelly Shannon, “Texans Vote to Limit Lawsuit Awards”, AP, Sep. 14; Janet Elliott, “Texans pass Prop. 12 in statewide election”, Houston Chronicle, Sep. 14; amendment text). (via Bashman)