South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

Attorney Reprimanded for Misconduct During Litigation

2007-12-03T20:32:23-05:00

A U.S. District Judge in New York has reprimanded an attorney, finding that she was "the driving force" behind a series of woeful acts and "misconduct" during litigation, including altering transcripts, refusing to provide opposing counsel with documents, and misrepresenting facts to the court, to her fellow lawyers and to her client. You can read the 129 page opinion and order by clicking HERE.

Source: "Federal Judge Lowers The Boom On Attorney" published at Courthouse News Service.

Illinois Judge Strikes Medical Malpractice Caps

2007-11-14T10:42:08-05:00

From ChicagoBusiness.com:

A Cook County judge on Tuesday struck down a two-year-old Illinois law that caps some jury awards to victims of medical malpractice.

Circuit Court Judge Diane J. Larsen ruled that limiting payments for “non-economic damages” such as pain and suffering is unconstitutional. The law caps those awards in malpractice suits at $500,000 per case for doctors and $1 million per case for hospitals. There is no cap on economic damages, such as loss of pay.
In her 10-page opinion, Judge Larsen ruled that the law violates the Illinois Constitution’s “separation of powers” clause — essentially finding that lawmakers interfered with the right of juries to determine fair damages.

The ruling means the case likely will go directly to the Illinois Supreme Court as early as next summer. The court has twice before struck down laws that limit payments to malpractice victims: once in the 1970s and again in 1997.

The decision deals a blow to doctors and the hospital industry, which waged a bitter lobbying campaign in 2005 to get the law passed. Facing resistance from the state’s trial bar, they argued that frivolous malpractice lawsuits and runaway jury awards were causing sky-high insurance rates and driving some doctors out of the state.

In a statement Tuesday, the Illinois Hospital Assn. expressed disappointment in the ruling but said it looked forward to a Supreme Court decision. “The law is critically needed to preserve and enhance access to health care for Illinoisans and remains the most appropriate, meaningful and comprehensive solution to address the medical liability crisis,” the statement reads.

Illinois’ trial bar sued last year to have the caps struck down as part of a malpractice lawsuit against Gottlieb Memorial Hospital in Melrose Park in which a baby allegedly suffered brain damage during a botched delivery. That case has not gone to trial.

Source: "Judge Strikes Down Illinois Med Mal Caps" by Mike Colias , published at ChicagoBusiness.com.

SC Governor Attempts to Interfere with Workers' Compensation Commission

2007-11-09T10:05:55-05:00

South Carolina Governor Marshall (Mark) Sanford has attempted to exert his will upon the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission. Basically, he is trying to tell an arm of the judicial branch how to do its job, ignoring the mandates established by the legislative branch when it established the Commission. The following is an article written by John P. Freeman, who is the John T. Campbell professor of business and professional ethics at the University of South Carolina School of Law, which provides excellent insight and analysis to this situation:

THE GOVERNOR'S INTERFERENCE

We all studied civics in school. We learned about such things as how there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Remember the lesson? We were taught that the legislature writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. This separation of powers was designed to protect citizens from excessive power being wielded by any single branch.

Unfortunately, it appears Gov. Mark Sanford cut class the day the foregoing civics lesson was taught.

His lack of education about separation of powers (or his deliberate disregard for the concept) was shown on Sept. 20 when he promulgated an executive order that directed commissioners on the Workers Compensation Commission to change how they decide cases. He commanded them to strictly use “objective standards” in rendering awards.

His aim was to reduce awards for injured workers, thereby saving money for his political base, namely the business community and insurance companies. What Gov. Sanford sought to orchestrate was a wealth transfer: Workers take less, his political base pays less.

Make no mistake about it. Gov. Sanford, the executive branch’s leader, intended to change the law by manipulation of judges he assumed he could control. We know this because when he signed the order at his press conference, comments made by him and his invited guests, business lobbyists, were captured on videotape. On that tape we find Gov. Sanford billing his “objective standards” approach as adding to the workers compensation law something “that was lacking.” Business lobbyists present at the press conference praised Gov. Sanford for “today... implementing objective standards into the workers compensation system for the first time.”

This new requirement pleased the business lobbyists since the Legislature, the government branch actually empowered to write laws, had refused to enact objective standards in the last legislative session.

To enforce his command that workers comp awards be reduced, Gov. Sanford’s order demanded that each commissioner report to the governor quarterly about adherence to the order’s award-cutting command. Implicit in the reporting requirement was the suggestion that failure to follow directions exposed a recalcitrant commissioner to punishment, either removal or the governor’s failure to reappoint.

One of the lobbyists at the order-signing press conference explained that the governor’s right to pressure workers compensation commissioners to change the law was rooted in a “pretty simple concept.” The commissioners, he explained, “are not judges.... They are part of the executive branch. (Gov. Sanford) is the leader of the executive branch.” Another lobbyist later chimed in that “Even making a decision on whether or not to follow the governor’s executive order is improper because the commissioners are not judges.”

What smug business lobbyists and Gov. Sanford have now learned is that a Workers Compensation commissioner is not a puppet on a string. Each actually is a judge from an ethical standpoint, having been placed under the Canons of Judicial Ethics by the Legislature in 2005. Those ethical precepts demand that commissioners must act 24/7 with impartiality and integrity. They are ethically commanded to be faithful to the law and to disregard outsiders who seek to steer their decision-making.

The commissioners’ high ethical standards prevent them from dispensing favors to special interest groups, even when the governor who appointed them orders them to do so.

Political conservatives decry judicial activism, and Gov. Sanford presents himself as a conservative. But his aim in signing this executive order was anything but conservative. It was judicial activism personified. Gov. Sanford sought to manipulate judges in order to change the law to favor the business community, his political base. In their order flatly rejecting Gov. Sanford’s command, the Workers Compensation commissioners offered the governor a make-up assignment for that civics lesson he seems to have missed years ago. They also provided an example of professional integrity he would do well to emulate.

The rest of us can learn lessons from this episode as well. For one thing, we need to remember that those who seek to manipulate judicial decision-making are not working to serve the common good. Their intent is to benefit themselves, the special interest groups. The Workers Compensation commissioners’ steadfastness proves we have public servants with backbones and 20/20 vision.

Mr. Freeman is the John T. Campbell professor of business and professional ethics at the USC School of Law.

Source: "The Governor's Interference" by Prof. John P. Freeman, published at The State newspaper.

Free Online Research Resources

2007-07-26T07:46:15-05:00

The South Carolina Family Law Blog published an article yesterday discussing the free online resources listed at Lifehacker.com to assist in finding public records information online, including:

Vital Records
Phone Books
Professional Licenses
Criminal Records
Obituaries
Military Records
Immigration Records
Other (Google and Zabasearch)

These resources can prove valuable when trying to locate or obtain information about a party or witness in many types of cases, including personal injury cases. Check it out for yourself.

Source: "Where to Find Public Records Online" by Wendy Boswell, published at Lifehacker.com.

Medical Errors are Fifth-Leading Cause of Death

2007-07-23T00:01:00-05:00

Millennium Research Group, an authority on medical technology market intelligence, has conducted a detailed and thorough analysis of the acute care clinical information systems market, and it found that a major driver in the United States is the demand for improvement in patient safety. Medical errors are the fifth-leading cause of deaths in the United States, with up to 98,000 deaths annually. According to the new report entitled U.S. Markets for Acute Care Clinical Information Systems, hospitals are adopting clinical information systems to help them provide adequate, timely care and reduce the frequency of preventable errors.

Source: "Medical Error is the Fifth-Leading Cause of Death in the U.S." published by CBS-3 in Springfield, MA.

State Agency Destroys Records Related to Consumer Disputes with Insurance Companies

2007-07-21T00:01:00-05:00

For a year, the Florida Department of Financial Services has thrown away records relating to consumer disputes with insurance companies. Lawyers and open records advocates claim that by tossing the material, the state made it harder to track bad business practices by the insurance industry and uncover patterns of abuse. A public records champion called the practice ‘horrendous.’ A Department of Financial Services lawyer countered that since the files weren't requested and aren't required by law, the agency was free to destroy them. The state also questioned the value of the documents. For now, however, the practice is on hold.

Source: "Lawyers Rip Agency for Destroying Documents" by Paige St. John, published at Florida Today.

Jurors to Decide if Hospital Checked Doctor’s Credentials

2007-07-20T00:01:00-05:00

A trial being held in West Virginia will decide whether Putnam General Hospital properly investigated the credentials of Dr. John King, who has been named in more than 120 medical malpractice lawsuits. Patients contend that the doctor often performed substandard and unnecessary surgeries. Attorneys for the hospital have said the hospital did all it could to check the doctor’s background.

Source: "King Credentialing Trial Begins in Putnam County" by Chris Dickerson, published in The West Virginia Record.

Teachers File Lawsuit over Investment Recommendations

2007-07-19T00:01:00-05:00

Two members of the National Education Association claim, in a lawsuit filed last week, that the organization accepted millions of dollars in payments from Nationwide Life Insurance Company and the Security Benefit Group to endorse high-cost investments to its members. The lawsuit contends that by recommending the investments, the NEA violated its duty to its members. With an estimated 3.2 million members, the NEA is the nation’s largest professional organization.

Source: "Lawsuit Says Teachers Are Overcharged on Annuities" by Gretchen Morgenson, published in The New York Times.

Study Shows that Worker Background Checks Help Protect Elderly

2007-07-18T21:18:01-05:00

According to research conducted by the Senate Committee on Aging, background checks prevented 5,000 applicants from receiving jobs caring for the elderly. Some legislators are pointing to these figures as justification for federally standardized procedures to prevent people with criminal records or a history of abusive behavior from preying on the elderly. Currently, each state maintains its own system and procedures for conducting background checks.

Source: "Background Checks Reduce Abuse of Elderly, Panel Says" by Kevin Freking, published in the Houston Chronicle.

Proof That Our Tort System Works

2007-07-17T00:01:00-05:00

Anti-consumer groups like the Pacific Research Institute and Alabama Voters Against Lawsuit Abuse, which are funded by big companies, are seeing their weak arguments for tipping the scales of justice in favor of rich CEOs and against citizens get even weaker.

The ruling of a Washington, D.C., judge in favor of the dry cleaners in the now-famous "pants case" is proof positive that the American civil justice system works well as is. In addition, the plaintiff, D.C. Administrative Law Judge Roy Pearson, was ordered by the judge of the case to pay the defendants' court costs in the outrageous case.

Our civil justice system is designed to protect the rights of all parties, defendants included, and the judge's ruling in this case demonstrates how well the system works to weed-out frivolous lawsuits.

Anti-consumer groups like PRI and AVALA who are the labor behind the CEO-led takeover of the courts don't like that the judge's ruling in this case proves the civil justice system works for consumers who are in the right, no matter if they are bringing or defending a lawsuit. Will these same groups put as much energy and money in broadcasting the result as they did when the case was filed?

The overpaid CEOs of the billion-dollar corporations behind PRI, AVALA and other anti-consumer groups hate to see justice served, especially when it works against them. Is there a need for reform? Absolutely, it's called corp(orate) reform, not tort reform.

Source: "Pants Case Shows System Working" by Bob Price, President of the Alabama Association for Justice, published in the Montgomery Advertiser.