/24-7/ Tort reform is a perpetually relevant and constantly debated issue, mostly because there seems to be no static, easily-applied answer.
Proponents of capped, non-economic liability suits claim:
-Uncapped suits result in higher insurance costs for doctors, which lead to a lack of specialists in states with no caps. Essentially, doctors don't want to practice there.
-Uncapped suits also lead to higher insurance costs for consumers, as the higher cost for doctors is transferred down.
Opponents of capped, non-economic liability suits argue that:
-Capped suits are unfair to patients who have the most to lose. By imposing caps, we inadvertently punish those facing the most suffering, but with smaller economic implications.
-In addition, judges have the ability to limit monetary awards that balloon out of proportion. Therefore, caps limit the ability of the court to serve its purpose.
Currently the Georgia Supreme Court is hearing arguments over the state's $350,000 medical liability cap. In February, a county judge ruled that the non-economic damage cap was unconstitutional, as it cut across the court's right to determine awards. Judge Diane E. Bessen went on to say that the cap violated equal patient protection by disproportionately impacting those with more severe injuries.
Meanwhile, in Maryland, the court of appeals will hear arguments on whether liability caps should pertain only to cases resolved in arbitration. Supporters of the cap argue that this move would simply result in more court cases. Cap opponents hold that a "one-size-fits-all" approach is no solution and that more serious cases deserve higher judgments.
Over 20 states currently employ medical liability caps, including Kansas which, at $250,000, is one of the lowest.
While tort reform and medical liability caps remain a hot button in the healthcare debate, more and more data points to the fact that liability claims may not be as large a factor in healthcare costs as commonly thought. Estimates put it at about two or three percent of the entire U.S. healthcare bill.
Still, it's an easy target.
In 2004, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice released a study examining the effects of California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which was launched in 1975. The study found that those most affected by MICRA were individuals that suffered fewer economic damages, but faced a high amount of pain and loss in quality of life.
In other words, if you suffered an injury which did not impact you very much financially, but severely decreased your quality of life (say, you can no longer lift your arms above your head) you would be more susceptible to the cap.
Tort reform is a highly-emotional issue, for doctors, patients, lawyers and all those concerned about the future of healthcare. The cases in Georgia and Maryland certainly mark important decisions for both states, indeed, they may help to set a precedent that echoes across the country.
Article provided by Warner Law Offices PA
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
Showing posts with label liability. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liability. Show all posts
Saturday, December 12, 2009
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
GM's Bankruptcy Provides Some Protection for Injured But Falls Short
/24-7/ -- On July 10, the new, largely government-owned GM emerged from bankruptcy, shedding billions of dollars in debt as well as 20,000 US jobs, 2400 dealerships, 14 plants and three brand names.
While much of the attention is on the sleeker company that promises to wisely use American tax-payer dollars and invest in cleaner, more environmentally-friendly vehicles, the stories of thousands of Americans injured by GM manufactured products remain untold. These people have been left behind in bankruptcy court, waiting to hear if they will receive anything from the old company's liquidated assets.
A Limit on the Company's Liability
Much like Chrysler before it, the approved GM bankruptcy plan includes a release from liability for any claims arising from GM-manufactured vehicles before the company emerged from bankruptcy. This means that the new GM cannot be held responsible in a court of law for any injuries caused by its products anytime before July 10.
However, unlike Chrysler, the new GM has accepted liability for any injuries caused by GM vehicles from July 10 onwards, whether the vehicle was manufactured by the old GM or the new GM. Conversely, in the Chrysler bankruptcy, the new Chrysler only accepted liability for defects in vehicles manufactured by the new Chrysler. Anyone with claims associated with vehicles produced by the old Chrysler will not be able to bring them against the new company, regardless of when the injury occurs.
Originally, GM pursued the same limit on liability as was granted to Chrysler. But after the public outrage against the automaker for escaping liability in addition to pressure from consumer advocacy groups, several state Attorneys General and private and public attorneys, GM eventually agreed to accept a greater range of liability than the other car company. However, the GM plan still falls far short of what American consumers not only deserve, but are owed.
Old Claims vs. New Claims
The difference between the attachment of liability for old and new claims has left many scratching their heads, wondering why the bankruptcy court is allowing car manufacturers to pick and choose which legal claims it will accept.
To understand the bizarre nature of this result, one need only consider a hypothetical car accident, wherein someone was harmed as the result of a defective roof design. If this accident occurred last year and the lawsuit was filed before the GM bankruptcy was finalized, the person has no viable recourse against GM. The legal liability would fall upon old GM, which has a long list of creditors and very limited assets.
If instead the exact same accident with an identical vehicle happened tomorrow, the injured person could pursue a legal claim against the new GM. From a pragmatic standpoint for an injured person, this outcome makes absolutely no sense. A person's ability to recover for injuries caused by a defective product should not depend on the point in time when the person is injured.
An Unjust Result for the Injured
This result seems even more absurd when the bankruptcy court had other options to ensure a fairer outcome for Americans injured by the car manufacturer's products. For example, the bankruptcy court could have set aside money from new GM's assets specifically for legitimate product liability claims by consumers. A similar type of victim's compensation fund was created by courts that handled bankruptcy matters for asbestos manufacturers. Although the fund may not have provided full compensation, it would have been better than the nothing victims now are receiving.
To prevent car manufacturers from skirting their financial and moral obligation to pay for injuries caused by their products, Congressman Andre Carson introduced the Jeremy Warriner Consumer Protection Act of 2009 in the House of Representatives at the end of June. If passed, the Act would require certain vehicle manufacturers to carry liability insurance to cover consumer claims. Accordingly, victims with legal claims that otherwise would have been invalidated by the companies' bankruptcies may be able to seek compensation.
Conclusion
Even though GM's bankruptcy provided more coverage for potential future victims of GM-produced vehicles than the Chrysler bankruptcy, the plan still falls far short of what the public deserves. A person's ability to recover for their injuries should not depend on whether they were injured one year ago or one year from today. The bankruptcy court has allowed GM to deny legal rights to consumers who trusted in the company.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
While much of the attention is on the sleeker company that promises to wisely use American tax-payer dollars and invest in cleaner, more environmentally-friendly vehicles, the stories of thousands of Americans injured by GM manufactured products remain untold. These people have been left behind in bankruptcy court, waiting to hear if they will receive anything from the old company's liquidated assets.
A Limit on the Company's Liability
Much like Chrysler before it, the approved GM bankruptcy plan includes a release from liability for any claims arising from GM-manufactured vehicles before the company emerged from bankruptcy. This means that the new GM cannot be held responsible in a court of law for any injuries caused by its products anytime before July 10.
However, unlike Chrysler, the new GM has accepted liability for any injuries caused by GM vehicles from July 10 onwards, whether the vehicle was manufactured by the old GM or the new GM. Conversely, in the Chrysler bankruptcy, the new Chrysler only accepted liability for defects in vehicles manufactured by the new Chrysler. Anyone with claims associated with vehicles produced by the old Chrysler will not be able to bring them against the new company, regardless of when the injury occurs.
Originally, GM pursued the same limit on liability as was granted to Chrysler. But after the public outrage against the automaker for escaping liability in addition to pressure from consumer advocacy groups, several state Attorneys General and private and public attorneys, GM eventually agreed to accept a greater range of liability than the other car company. However, the GM plan still falls far short of what American consumers not only deserve, but are owed.
Old Claims vs. New Claims
The difference between the attachment of liability for old and new claims has left many scratching their heads, wondering why the bankruptcy court is allowing car manufacturers to pick and choose which legal claims it will accept.
To understand the bizarre nature of this result, one need only consider a hypothetical car accident, wherein someone was harmed as the result of a defective roof design. If this accident occurred last year and the lawsuit was filed before the GM bankruptcy was finalized, the person has no viable recourse against GM. The legal liability would fall upon old GM, which has a long list of creditors and very limited assets.
If instead the exact same accident with an identical vehicle happened tomorrow, the injured person could pursue a legal claim against the new GM. From a pragmatic standpoint for an injured person, this outcome makes absolutely no sense. A person's ability to recover for injuries caused by a defective product should not depend on the point in time when the person is injured.
An Unjust Result for the Injured
This result seems even more absurd when the bankruptcy court had other options to ensure a fairer outcome for Americans injured by the car manufacturer's products. For example, the bankruptcy court could have set aside money from new GM's assets specifically for legitimate product liability claims by consumers. A similar type of victim's compensation fund was created by courts that handled bankruptcy matters for asbestos manufacturers. Although the fund may not have provided full compensation, it would have been better than the nothing victims now are receiving.
To prevent car manufacturers from skirting their financial and moral obligation to pay for injuries caused by their products, Congressman Andre Carson introduced the Jeremy Warriner Consumer Protection Act of 2009 in the House of Representatives at the end of June. If passed, the Act would require certain vehicle manufacturers to carry liability insurance to cover consumer claims. Accordingly, victims with legal claims that otherwise would have been invalidated by the companies' bankruptcies may be able to seek compensation.
Conclusion
Even though GM's bankruptcy provided more coverage for potential future victims of GM-produced vehicles than the Chrysler bankruptcy, the plan still falls far short of what the public deserves. A person's ability to recover for their injuries should not depend on whether they were injured one year ago or one year from today. The bankruptcy court has allowed GM to deny legal rights to consumers who trusted in the company.
-----
www.fayettefrontpage.com
Fayette Front Page
www.georgiafrontpage.com
Georgia Front Page
www.artsacrossgeorgia.com
Arts Across Georgia
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
