Victory for Bush on Suits.

[JoeChalupa]

Victory For Bush in Suits (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33211-2005Feb17.html)

President Bush will sign legislation this morning to rewrite the rules for class-action lawsuits, a measure he has coveted for years and whose swift passage in the new Congress illustrates the expanded influence of Republicans and their business supporters.


I support this and I'm glad some Democrats approved this. There were some Republicans who also voted against it too.

But I don't like limiting judgements when those bastard HMO's deny medical procedures that doctor's recommend simply because of the costs.

But I also can't help but think that those big bucks from the corporations may have influenced how some vote. You know, don't bite the hands that feed you.

What say you?

[Bandit2981]

i dont like it. in one stroke, all of the potential lawsuits that will be the basis for future environmental legislation and regulation will be prohibited. if parties who are harmed cannot sue immoral or negligent corporations or professionals for significant sums, the companies are then free to harm the public in unlimited ways in the course of making money. they will be free to ignore the public good. in addition, im sure now that many businesses can now calculate in advance the cost of paying victims and build it into the cost of doing business. the whole thing of course was masked by the "frivolous lawsuit" cover, but like always thats just scratching the surface

[JoeChalupa]

I don't think it is bad because, I believe, it only covers class-action suits so individual cases against a corporation would still stay in State courts.

[sbsquared]

It doesn't say they can't sue - it says they have to do it in Federal Courts where the guidelines are stricter. Right now, lawyers shop courts in different states to find the venue that would be most sympathetic to their case - and I think that's wrong.

[FromWayDowntown]

I will say this, unlike the State of Texas, which has essentially made any class action, regardless of its merit, impossible to pursue (is that really a good thing?), the Federal law at least permits some litigation in the class context.

But I think federal judges are going to get really tired of having every class lawsuit brought before them, rather than having those suits doled out to the far-more-numerous state courts. In Texas, for example, there are somewhere around 500 state district courts, but fewer than 50 federal district courts. The numbers are more dramatically different in other states. Federal courts are now going to have to devote substantial time and effort to dealing with class actions, which are inherently more complicated at every stage, and will have to devote less time to things like adjudicating criminal offenses and other such matters. It's just not an efficient use of judicial resources and it seems like a politically-motivated move to keep big business happy. I don't like the bill.

[Bandit2981]

I don't think it is bad because, I believe, it only covers class-action suits so individual cases against a corporation would still stay in State courts.
the environment affects all of us joe, not just individuals. if a chemical company is dumping waste that is contaminating soil, water, air, etc. and making nearby residents ill(remember erin brockovich?), that whole affected population should have the right to bring a class action suit against the company to get something done, and not be limited to some cap award which wont change anything as to how said company does business.

[FromWayDowntown]

the environment affects all of us joe, not just individuals. if a chemical company is dumping waste that is contaminating soil, water, air, etc. and making nearby residents ill(remember erin brockovich?), that whole affected population should have the right to bring a class action suit against the company to get something done, and not be limited to some cap award which wont change anything as to how said company does business.

More importantly, while an individual could, in theory bring that kind of a suit, the truth is that its not economically feasible, both because the costs of prosecuting that kind of a suit are very high and the individual economic damages aren't very high. But, if you have 100 or 1000 or 10,000 people who have been adversely affected by the negligence or malice of the defendant, the costs can be more readily absorbed while the damages will be exponentially higher, sending a much stronger message.

Besides, the experiment in individual suits against corporations for things like environmental issues, has been a classic failure. The corporations have figured out that all they have to do to get out from under the suit is file a frivilous counterclaim for something like defamation and cause the plaintiff (who generally had a good faith reason for bringing suit) to choose between dismissing her complaint or incurring great cost and exposing itself to great liability based on the defamation suit. These are called "SLAPP" suits ("Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation") and they have become more and more common when an individual asserts a claim against a corporation.

[SPARKY]

heres something to consider. in a past professional life I spent some time working on a class action suit, one that pitted about 50 odd franchisees against the franschisor. the franchisor was blantantly violating the terms of about half of the franchise agreements explicitly and as for the other half basically was acting in bad faith by selling product in supermarkets in the same damn shopping center as some of those franchisees.

for a lot of franchisees the business was their primary personal asset, job, and life all rolled into one. the company's decision to go against their word did cause some of those franchisees to go out of business and severely hurt others. these people played by the rules and they were screwed by a company with deep enough pockets to drag out the litigation while the franchisees struggled to fund the case collectively. when i left that line of work the case was still dragging on with no resolution in sight.

that company didnt need any new laws passed to deal with a class action. here was a case with plenty of merit and the company's lawyers had every tool it needed to fuck with the franchisees. and that was in federal court.

that engagement was an eye opener and before you call me a liberal socialist commie the majority of my other work in that life was for corporate clients.

so when people want to rail against litigation and about how its a bad thing and anti-business you might want to think again. perhaps one day it will be you getting screwed over.

[FromWayDowntown]

heres something to consider. in a past professional life I spent some time working on a class action suit, one that pitted about 50 odd franchisees against the franschisor. the franchisor was blantantly violating the terms of about half of the franchise agreements explicitly and as for the other half basically was acting in bad faith by selling product in supermarkets in the same damn shopping center as some of those franchisees.

for a lot of franchisees the business was their primary personal asset, job, and life all rolled into one. the company's decision to go against their word did cause some of those franchisees to go out of business and severely hurt others. these people played by the rules and they were screwed by a company with deep enough pockets to drag out the litigation while the franchisees struggled to fund the case collectively. when i left that line of work the case was still dragging on with no resolution in sight.

that company didnt need any new laws passed to deal with a class action. here was a case with plenty of merit and the company's lawyers had every tool it needed to fuck with the franchisees. and that was in federal court.

that engagement was an eye opener and before you call me a liberal socialist commie the majority of my other work in that life was for corporate clients.

so when people want to rail against litigation and about how its a bad thing and anti-business you might want to think again. perhaps one day it will be you getting screwed over.

AMEN!

[RobinsontoDuncan]

As a lawyer i can tell you the language in this new bill makes filing any class action law suits impossible for anyone that isn't a millionaire. You have to understand why such law suits are a necessity, w/o them cases such as the one in Erin Brokovich would be ignored and major coorporations could get away with anything. This is also an infringment of civil liberties, limiting an individual's right to seek legal action is unconstitutional.

[MannyIsGod]

You know, the moment I heard about this I wondered if it was constitutional.

I'm all with Sparky here, the reality is that there is no need for tort reform. It's a bunch of crap and it pisses me off that yet again, things become harder for the average joe in some aspect in this country.

[Clandestino]

As a lawyer i can tell you the language in this new bill makes filing any class action law suits impossible for anyone that isn't a millionaire. You have to understand why such law suits are a necessity, w/o them cases such as the one in Erin Brokovich would be ignored and major coorporations could get away with anything. This is also an infringment of civil liberties, limiting an individual's right to seek legal action is unconstitutional.

of course, most lawyers will say this...

[Clandestino]

You know, the moment I heard about this I wondered if it was constitutional.

I'm all with Sparky here, the reality is that there is no need for tort reform. It's a bunch of crap and it pisses me off that yet again, things become harder for the average joe in some aspect in this country.

when people sue tobacco companies, gun companies, the tsnumai center, etc.. those are all bs lawsuits...

[SPARKY]

So in order to get rid of "bs lawsuits" let's make it harder for claims with merit to proceed?

[Clandestino]

So in order to get rid of "bs lawsuits" let's make it harder for claims with merit to proceed?

making it harder to file a claim will cut down on bs lawsuits..yes, that is what i am saying...

[SPARKY]

As well as those with merit. Why do you think so much money was spent on lobbying Congress in order to pass that law?

[Clandestino]

As well as those with merit. Why do you think so much money was spent on lobbying Congress in order to pass that law?

first of all, class action lawsuits are usually very large and the monetary rewards are as well... lawyers take them in hopes of taking their 30-40% cut... with this, they will choose to take cases they think they can win...

[SPARKY]

Sure and what better to take than cases with some semblance of a meritous claim?

Look, I'm not going to argue that there are not abuses of the system, but you don't rectify that by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The odds are stacked more heavily against plaintiffs than is portrayed in the popular media.

Right, contingency fees run that high and they run that high for a reason, so there will be an incentive for real claims to be brought. Think about how cases are financed for a second. You have attorneys who agree not to be paid unless they are successful versus defendants who often have enough resources to drag out the litigation enough to kill legit claims.

Sure, if you make it harder to sue companies then that helps their profitability, but at what cost? Do you really want to live in a society in which it's even harder than it already is to hold defendants to account for real damages? I don't.

[Clandestino]

Sure and what better to take than cases with some semblance of a meritous claim?

Look, I'm not going to argue that there are not abuses of the system, but you don't rectify that by throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The odds are stacked more heavily against plaintiffs than is portrayed in the popular media.

Right, contingency fees run that high and they run that high for a reason, so there will be an incentive for real claims to be brought. Think about how cases are financed for a second. You have attorneys who agree not to be paid unless they are successful versus defendants who often have enough resources to drag out the litigation enough to kill legit claims.

Sure, if you make it harder to sue companies then that helps their profitability, but at what cost? Do you really want to live in a society in which it's even harder than it already is to hold defendants to account for real damages? I don't.

i guess you will have to present your case to a large firm with the resources to fight on your behalf for the entirety...(just like they did in erin brockovich, seeing as how you guys love to quote that movie so much)...

[SPARKY]

So you reduce the odds that real claims are successful. How is that in the interest of those actually harmed?

Another thing I have to take issue with is the assumption that constricted litigation is in the interest of "business", "free enterprise", "jobs", etc...it's not necessarily. It's in the interest of certain businesses, those with the resources to spend on lobbying Congress to write such laws as the one which is the subject of this thread. Smaller firms can have their viability threatened when you make it easier for larger firms to screw them over. A pillar of free enterprise is the enforcability of contracts. If you make it easier for those contracts to be breached then you are allowing for even greater use of the courts for anti-competitive activities. You also end up with an environment in which job loss can occur due to smaller firms going under and given that smaller firms are typically where job creation occurs as well as where a majority of Americans work then you are putting that at greater risk.

[Nbadan]

Bush Tort Reform
Executive Clemency For Executive Killers
Friday, February 18, 2005
By Greg Palast


It's a great day for the Eichmanns of corporate America. President Bush minutes ago signed the ill-named 'tort reform' bill into law, limiting class action suits. Doubtless, Ken Lay, former Enron CEO, is grinning as are the corporate suite killers at drug maker Merck who are now safer from the widows and orphans of Vioxx victims.

Closing the doors of justice to the ruined and wrecked families of boardroom bad guys is nothing less than executive clemency for executive executioners.

You think my accusation is over the top? Well, please talk with Elaine Levenson.

Levenson, a Cincinnati housewife, has been waiting for her heart to explode. In 1981, surgeons implanted a mechanical valve in her heart, the Bjork-Shiley, "the Rolls-Royce of valves," her doctor told her. What neither she nor her doctor knew was that several Bjork-Shiley valves had fractured during testing, years before her implant. The company that made the valve, a unit of the New York-based pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, never told the government.

At Pfizer's factory in the Caribbean, company inspectors found inferior equipment, which made poor welds. Rather than toss out bad valves, Pfizer management ordered the defects ground down, weakening the valves further but making them look smooth and perfect. Then Pfizer sold them worldwide.

When the valve's struts break and the heart contracts, it explodes. Two-thirds of the victims die, usually in minutes. In 1980, Dr. Viking Bjork, whose respected name helped sell the products, wrote to Pfizer demanding corrective action. He threatened to publish cases of valve strut failures.

A panicked Pfizer executive telexed, "ATTN PROF BJORK, WE WOULD PREFER THAT YOU DID NOT PUBLISH THE DATA RELATIVE TO STRUT FRACTURE." The company man gave this reason for holding off public exposure of the deadly valve failures: "WE EXPECT A FEW MORE." His expectations were realized. The count has reached eight hundred fractures, five hundred dead-so far.

Dr. Bjork called it murder, but kept his public silence.

Eight months after the "don't publish" letter, a valve was implanted in Mrs. Levenson. In 1994, the U.S. Justice Department nabbed Pfizer. To avoid criminal charges, the company paid civil penalties-and about $200 million in restitution to victims. Without the damning evidence prized from Pfizer by a squadron of lawyers, the Justice Department would never have brought its case.

Pfizer moans that lawyers still hound the company with more demands. But that is partly because Pfizer recalled only the unused valves. The company refused to pay to replace valves of fearful recipients.

As we've all learned from watching episodes of LA Law, in America's courtrooms the rich get away with murder. Yet no matter the odds for the Average Joe, easy access to the courts is a right far more valuable than the quadrennial privilege of voting for the Philanderer-in-Chief. This wee bit of justice, when victim David can demand to face corporate Goliath, makes America feel like a democracy until today, when our President blocked the courtroom door with his 'tort-reform' laws.

We can even vent our fury on the führer. I have in my book a copy of a letter from Adolf Hitler. In it he's agreeing to Volkswagen's request for more slave laborers from concentration camps. This evidence would never have come to light were it not for lawsuits filed by bloodsucking lawyer leeches, as the corporate lobby would like to characterize class-action plaintiffs' attorneys. In this case, the firm of Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, Washington, DC, outed this document in a suit on behalf of slave workers whose children died in deadly "nurseries" run by the automakers VW, Ford, Daimler and others. (If Hitler had been captured, he might have used the defense, "I was only taking orders . . . from Volkswagen.")

But the Nazi profiteers have their friends in the corporate lobby. Victims' rights are under attack. Waving the banner of "Tort Reform," corporate America has funded an ad campaign portraying entrepreneurs held hostage by frivolous lawsuits. But proposed remedies stink of special exemptions from justice. One would give Pfizer a free ride for its deadly heart-attack machines. A ban on all lawsuits against makers of parts for body implants, even those with deadly defects, was slipped into patients' rights legislation by the Republican Senate leader. The clause, killed by exposure, was lobbied by the Health Industries Manufacturers Association, which is supported by-you guessed it-Pfizer.

At their best, tort lawyers are cops who police civil crime. Just as a wave of burglaries leads to demand for more policemen, the massive increase in litigation has a single cause: a corporate civil crime wave.

And today, the corporate killer gang received executive clemency from our President. They don't call him the 'Chief Executive' for nothing.

A decade ago, after eighteen buildings blew up in Chicago and killed four people, I searched through the records of the local private gas company on behalf of survivors. What I found would make you sick. I saw engineers' reports, from years earlier, with maps marking where explosions would be likely to take place. The company, People's Gas, could have bought the coffins in advance.

Management had rejected costly repairs as "not in the strategic plan." It's not planned evil at work here, but the enormity of corporate structures in which human consequences of financial acts are distant and unimaginable.

I admit, of the nearly one million lawyers in the United States, you could probably drown 90 percent and only their mothers would grieve. But as Mrs. Levenson told me, without her lawyer and the threat of a class action tort, Pfizer would not have paid her a dime of compensation.

The tort reformers' line is that fee-hungry lawyers are hawking bogus fears, poisoning Americans' faith in the basic decency of the business community, turning us into a nation of people who no longer trust each other. But whose fault is that? The lawyers? Elaine Levenson put her trust in Pfizer Pharmaceutical. Then they broke her heart.

-----
Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy, from which this is taken. For more information go to http://www.gregpalast.com/

[MannyIsGod]

Laws like this only hurt people who won't be able to follow through on ligitimate suits