It is no secret that plaintiffs’ attorneys are against lawsuit reform – they risk losing out on their big paydays cases.  Yet what is most disturbing is just how much of their money finds its way into the campaign funds of our elected officials.

We at LRANY have high hopes that with widespread awareness and action from supporters like you, along with our Governor’s commitment to ethics and transparency, we can stem the tide of trial bar money and repair our legal system.

Visit out Get Involved page to find out how you can help and write to your local elected official!

“A shareholder lawyer told a Delaware judge at a midsummer court hearing two years ago that his team deserved $700,000 for work on a lawsuit in which his clients received nothing”.

This is  not a one-time event.

“Of 57 such investor class actions settled or otherwise concluded there in 2010 and 2011, 40 — or 70 percent — made money for plaintiffs’ lawyers but not clients, according to data compiled by Bloomberg News…None of the 10 cases that New York-based Faruqi & Faruqi helped to settle during the two years produced cash for clients, according to court records. Legal fees in those 10 cases totaled $6 million, split among plaintiffs’ firms. 

Overall, lawyers won $32.4 million for themselves in the 40 cases that generated no money for clients”.

Read More from Bloomberg

Many of the plaintiffs’ firms in these cases are New York based and clearly well versed in how to manipulate the system in their favor.  This practice was seen last August in the unfortunate story of the cancer-stricken Ground Zero worker who received a check for zero dollars from his $10,000 settlement after various lawyer fees were subtracted.  There was even a recent case in which a New York malpractice attorney was arrested for literally stealing his clients $70,000 settlement.

We are fighting to stop these unfair and deceptive practices in New York, find out how you can join the fight!

“‘We’re looking to repeal the scaffold law as part of a larger effort to seek relief from mandates that make it difficult to do business,’ said Tom Stebbins, executive director”

Read More (Subscription Required) 

For More information on Scaffold Law reform, visit www.ScaffoldLaw.org

Last week, premium exercise equipment manufacturer Cybex International agreed to pay $19.5m to a Cheektowaga woman, who was injured by a piece of Cybex equipment when she improperly used a leg machine to stretch her shoulder in October 2004. The settlement was reduced from the $66m originally awarded in the case, considered by many to be a record in Western New York personal injury cases.  The settlement is also down from the $44m awarded by the appellate division in November 2011.  But even the $44m was expected by many analysts to bankrupt Cybex, which had $4m in liability insurance.

While the reduced settlement may allow Cybex to continue to operate and let its workers keep their jobs, the fact remains that it took the very real prospect of bankrupting another American manufacturer to bring the settlement down.  And the cost of this lawsuit extends far beyond Cybex.   Looking at this lawsuit, American manufacturers will likely see the need to add more insurance, adding to the cost of their products and increasing the price to consumers.

Similarly, innovation will be stifled as manufacturers consider liability before quality.  Even though the plaintiff in this case did not use the equipment for its intended purpose, the court ruled that the manufacturer was liable for the injury since using the equipment for stretching was “foreseeable.”  Of course, now manufacturers must consider every foreseeable misuse as they design products, rather than focus on improving the experience of the intended use.

When the initial ruling came down, Cybex Chairman and CEO said the case was an example of “the tort system run amok.”  We couldn’t agree more.  And while this accident was tragic, if we continue to bring American companies to near bankruptcy with litigation, do not be surprised if there are not many American companies left.

Court administrators were recently in Albany to discuss how recent budget cuts have forced them to scale back court services.  This should serve as a timely reminder to all that New York needs to pass reforms to stop the flow of frivolous, and sometimes ridiculous, lawsuits that are choking our legal system.  In just the past year we in have seen too many examples of these types of cases – from the 290lb man suing White Castle because the booths were too small, to the husband of the woman who drunkenly drove a van full of children the wrong way down the Taconic Parkway suing the state for “inadequate signage.” Did you know that in 2010, a New York lawyer successfully filed a lawsuit against a four year old girl?

Many New Yorkers may just shake their head at our overly litigious society.  But what they may not know is that New York has a number of laws, supported by the powerful trial lawyer lobby, that make it all too easy and profitable to sue.  Consider, for example, the provision of “joint and several” liability that can force party that is as little as 1% liable to pay 100% of the settlement.  This provision encourages trial lawyers to take a “sue everybody” approach, in the hopes of roping every possible solvent bystander into our already overburdened legal system.

Our doctors, hospitals and nursing homes are similarly hounded by frivolous claims, driving up the cost of healthcare for all New Yorkers and driving doctors from our state.  An independent review of closed claims by the Harvard School of Public Health found that 30% of malpractice claims were “frivolous” and another 26% were of “uncertain merit.” Again, New York encourages these claims with an outdated standard of evidence well below that used in Federal court and many other states.  For example, under New York expert witness laws, a podiatrist can testify in a neurosurgery case, and often plaintiffs do not have to even disclose their witnesses until shortly before trial.  This encourages the practice of “trial by ambush,” turning our justice system into a profitable game for some. If the goal is to ensure fairness for all parties, New York must require expert witnesses to be adequately qualified.

And lest you think that you will never be the subject of a frivolous case, consider for a moment that under New York law you can be sued by a burglar for injuries incurred while breaking into your home.  Nearly every other state has solved this legal loophole.  Thankfully, a bill before the New York State legislature would limit your liability for a trespasser’s injuries. Who could be against that? We as sensible New Yorkers must demand reforms to our civil justice system to stop the frivolous lawsuits and ensure that our courts’ limited resources are preserved for those who truly need them.

CBS News reports the Oglala Sioux Tribe of South Dakota plans to sue 5 international beer manufacturers for $500 million.  This amount is to cover the cost of health care, social services, and child rehabilitation caused by chronic alcoholism on the reservation; to which they feel the manufacturers knowingly contributed.  The lawsuit also names four beer stores in a bordering town which sold 5 million cans of beer in 2010 despite only having 12 residents.

There is indeed a devastating problem in this American Indian tribes’ reservation – one in four babies are born with fetal alcohol syndrome, and the average life expectancy is between 45 and 52 (over 30 years shorter the North American average).  But blaming the consumption of alcoholic beverages, a voluntary act, on the manufacturer defies common sense. In fact, there has actually been a ban on alcohol in the reservation since 1832 which was lifted for just two months in 1970 prior to being restored.

If an outright ban on alcohol hasn’t curbed the rampant alcoholism, how can anyone believe that $500 million from the beer companies will fix the problem?  Personal responsibility must come into play here, and blaming the manufacturers treads a slippery slope. The production and sale of alcohol is highly regulated, and fully legal – what laws did the manufacturers break? The growing trend to place the blame on whoever has the deepest pockets in hopes of getting an easy settlement must be reversed.

“The economics are irrefutable, and the human evidence is sobering. The present medical liability situation in this country is adding to the already high cost of American medical care, driving physicians away from certain geographies and practice specialties — and shortchanging patients in the process.

We all pay the price for our broken medical liability system and the direct effect it has on the cost of medical care.

Study after study has shown that today’s medical liability system contributes to high health care costs because it forces physicians to practice defensive medicine. This shows up in unnecessary tests ordered and procedures performed, and it also shows up when physicians do not provide certain care to avoid litigation risks. In 2003, the Dept. of Health and Human Services estimated the cost of defensive medicine to be between $70 billion and $126 billion per year.”

The high costs of liability insurance for OB-GYN’s in New York is specifically mentioned in the piece as it is remarkably higher than the rest of the nation.

“As an example, according to a 2009 survey from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, more than 63% of obstetricians-gynecologists have altered their practice due to the risk of liability claims and litigation. Sixty percent reported changing their practice, such as limiting their number of high-risk patients, due to insurance affordability or availability issues.

In certain areas of New York, gynecologists and obstetricians have seen premiums increase 41% since 2004 — up to $206,913 in 2011. General surgeons in those same areas have seen a 64% increase over the same period. Other states have seen similarly large increases.”

Read More

A lawsuit was recently filed by a Staten Island mother, representing herself,  for the mind boggling amount of $900 trillion (yes trillion!), reports SI Live.  Fausat Ogunbayo claims she is owed this amount in damages resulting from the city removing her two children from her home and placing them in foster care over three years ago.

The city claims the children were removed due the mother being mentally ill, suffering from hallucinations and delusions, and refusing treatment.  They note several examples of delusions including a letter written to the school claiming the FBI was out to get her boys and calls to the doctor claiming her son’s skin was getting darker from radiation.  Ogunbayo states the allegations are a “huge lie” and that she and her children have suffered  ”over three years of terror, horror, grievous harm, time lost, substantial economic hardship and injuries.”

Ms. Ogunbayo is now desperate to get her children back, but  her $900 trillion lawsuit suggests she is still experiencing delusions.  Just the action of the lawsuit being filed is costing taxpayer dollars and tying up already strained court resources.  If Ms. Ogunbayo is trying to get her kids back by proving she is sensible and responsible, she might want to consider a different route.

The Wall Street Journal reports today that a New York City judge has thrown out a case brought against a Greenwich pub.  The lawsuit was filed by a New Jersey man, Alan Berger, who was struck by a car after playing “beer pong” at the pub for three and a half hours.  His suit claims the bar should have been watching the players to make sure they were not getting visibly drunk.

Thankfully, the judge found that Berger was responsible for his own actions when he signed up for the drinking game and “consumed alcohol to the point of diminished capacity.”  But for every crazy suit that gets tossed there is another that makes it through.

Personal responsibility is hard to come by these days, and it is far too easy to place the blame on someone else and sue – too often people play the “lawsuit lottery” in the hopes of winning a big settlement. It is easy to laugh at ridiculous lawsuits, but to the small business owners who must spend their own time and money defending themselves it’s no joke.  Sadly, it is often cheaper to settle nuisance suits than to win in court – and don’t think for a second that personal injury lawyers don’t know that.

It’s time for common sense to make a comeback. We need real sanctions for lawyers that file junk lawsuits to stop the “lawsuit lottery” and restore the public’s faith in our civil justice system – not to mention save New York taxpayers millions each year.

The Ohio House has passed HB 380 which would require plaintiffs in asbestos litigation to disclose any additional claims they have pending against asbestos trusts. Said Ohio state representative Lou Blessing, “openness in legal proceedings is good and helps ensure that justice is fairly administered.”

We couldn’t agree more.  A recent report by the Government Accountability Office highlighted the secretive nature of asbestos trusts. The report studied 52 of the 60 asbestos trusts in existence and found that they have paid out approximately 3.3 million claims totaling $17.5 billion. Yet amazingly, only one trust publically disclosed the how much and to whom payments were made.

Equally troubling is the connection between asbestos law firms and the trusts they seek recovery from. A 2010 report by the RAND Institute for Civil Justice uncovered several such connections that should raise suspicion – demonstrating that the plaintiffs’ law firms effectively control the trusts through their management of the Trust Advisory Committees. For example, the law firm Weitz and Luxenberg has influence over 42% of the asbestos trusts reviewed in the study, serving as Trust Advisory Committee members.

Ohio’s legislation is a model of transparency and fairness. New York leaders should take note and advance similar measures to prevent unfair duplicative recoveries and shed light on firms which routinely abuse the system. Otherwise, financial incentives will continue to invite rampant abuse of the system and will hasten the depletion of funds intended for the truly sick.