TORT REFORM

An Eye For An Eye

We are all familiar with the Bible and its many references to justice including an “eye for an eye” or an arm for an arm and similar expressions from the Bible mandating justice.

Caps on damages are evil, wicked, and I guess they would change the compensation from and eye for an eye to an eye for a glass eye and set damages at that amount. A just, fair and moral society must allow for compensation that consists of pain, incapacitation, mental anguish, loss of enjoyment of life, and all damages that flow from the loss. Capping damages changes an eye for an eye and an arm for an arm to cap damages at an arm for a fingernail.

The Bible provides moral authority for a tort system free of caps as does our constitutional right to a trial by jury. The tort reformers currently want to change the “an eye for an eye” to damage caps at an eye for an eyelash or an arm for an arm capped at an arm for a fingernail.

These types of caps on damages are wicked, evil and outrageous.

The Bible opposed “tort reform” in the following passages:

“Whatever he has done must be done to him.” Lev. 24:19 (NIV) is used to indicate that the wrongdoer should get what he deserves. Judges 15:6-8 (11)

The restitution could be monetary or in kind, as indicated in Lev. 24:18 “Anyone who takes the life of someone’s animal must make restitution – life for life.” Obviously in this case, life for life does not mean that the individual who killed the animal was to be killed. The law provided the legislative foundation to establish proper equivalents in specific cases.

Jesus and the Law of Equivalency. The intent of the law of retribution was to insure that the punishment corresponded to the wrongdoing in order to control the punishment inflicted on the wrongdoer. These principles found in the Bible are sound, just, fair and righteous reasons to oppose any type of tort reform. An eye for an eye means just what it says without caps on damages wrongdoers. Any attempts to close the courthouse doors in capping just, fair and righteous awards is outrageous.

TENNESSEE TORT REFORM

Collateral Source Rule is Fair, Just and Necessary

The Collateral Source Rule dates back to the 1800s in this country to prevent wrongdoers from benefitting at the expense of responsible citizens, health care providers, and the public at large. There is a current bill before the Tennessee legislature that is part of the Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011 and, if passed, would change the collateral source rule. The proposed Tennessee Civil Justice Act of 2011, specifically, under Section 6(f) reads

“ . . .in any tort action in which liability is admitted or established, the damages awarded may include, in addition to other elements of damages authorized by law, economic losses incurred by the claimant by reason of the injury. Economic damages shall not include charges to the extent they have been discounted or forgiven or subject to discounts or forgiveness for any reason, including, without limitation, discounts arising from a financial relationship with a health insurer or payor.”

A hypothetical example of how this bill is unfair to responsible citizens, healthcare providers, and the general public is as follows:

An individual whom we will call Hotrod, is driving his Porsche sports care at 100 mph down the interstate while texting his girlfriend. Hotrod slams into a father of 41 years of age, the mother who is 41 years of age, and their young son 7 years of age causing this innocent family to suffer significant injuries. Hotrod is insured in this hypothetical with Great Farmers Insurance Company and has one million dollars liability insurance. Ironically, the jury that would hear this case would never be allowed to know that Hotrod is insured and has one million dollars of coverage. However, this innocent family that suffered significant injuries, the 7 year old child suffers a permanent loss of vision in one eye, the 41 years old mother loses her arm, the father becomes totally disabled following back surgery and other injuries from this crash.

For purposes of this example, the father’s medical charges and expenses are $100,000.00, the mother’s medical charges are $100,000.00 and the young son’s medical bills are $100,000.00. The family has maintained and paid for health insurance for a number of years, and has paid in approximately $350,000.00 in premiums with Blue Cross Blue Shield.

The collateral source rule does not allow the jury to know that the family had health insurance, nor that the defendant was insured with liability of a million dollars. The health care providers, including the emergency room, primary care physicians, specialists and surgeons that treated this family are not paid from Hotrod’s (the defendant wrongdoer) liability insurance because they deny liability and refuse to pay the claim. The insurance company can drag this case out for as long as 4 to 5 years and the health care providers then have to wait that long to be paid anything at all as they are just attempting to serve this injured family who suffered injuries at the hands of the wrongdoer.

Unfairness to the victims (the innocent family in this example) would not be allowed to recover the full amount of the medical expenses incurred if their providers who could not be paid through the liability insurance carrier because that carrier denied liability and refused to pay the bills would be punished for being responsible and submitting these bills to the family’s health insurance carrier. This is grossly unfair, unjust and improper as this family has paid approximately $350,000.00 in premiums for this benefit and they are being punished and not being able to collect the full amount of their damages from this crash.

Ironically, if they were irresponsible and did not have health insurance, Hotrod’s liability insurance carrier would have to pay the full amount of their medical bills which is unjust, unfair and improper.

Unfairness to the Health Care Providers:
The health care providers were only having to treat this family and repair their crippled bodies due to the negligence and carelessness of Hotrod driving too fast (100 mph) while texting his girlfriend at the time of this crash. The wrongdoer’s liability insurance company should not be able to escape responsibility because the health care providers could not wait four years for this case to get before a jury and for a verdict to be returned to be paid and instead submitted these bills to the innocent family’s health care insurance company and were paid a reduced amount and rather then the $300,000.00 for the care of this family, they were paid $150,000.00. The jury should be able to award the full amount of the reasonable and necessary medical expenses and the health care providers should be able to recover the full amount of their services.

The doctors, nurses, therapists, and hospitals have done nothing wrong to cause the injuries to this innocent family but are being punished while the wrongdoer pays nothing. This is obviously hurting the honest, hard-working doctors, nurses, therapists and hospitals in this state while Hotrod’s liability insurance company is enriched and encouraged to deny these claims and string them out as long as possible.

In addition, in this hypothetical, if the victims are on TennCare, it is grossly unfair for the healthcare providers to be stuck with TennCare rates and if the Judge or Jury awards the full amount of the medical bills, the doctors and hospitals should be able to recover the full amount of their bills. Doctors and hospitals should be allowed to receive their full bill from the wrongdoer and their insurance carrier if the jury or Judge awards those damages, and not the reduced rates. Why should healthcare providers be punished while the wrongdoer and their insurance company hold onto their money for as long as they can drag it out. Under this law, healthcare providers who did nothing wrong are being punished.

This Bill Would Harm Charitable Organizations:
Under this hypothetical, if the family was uninsured and Hotrod’s insurance company denied liability (which is their standard operating procedure) if the family’s church raises money for the care of this family and found a doctor willing to treat this family for free and a hospital willing to provide charity to this family, then their medical bills could not be awarded against Hotrod and the charity dollars from the church, from the doctor, and from the hospital, would not be recoverable. This is wrong, unjust and unfair on many levels. With this bill, the victims who were minding their own business are being punished for being responsible. Charitable organizations such as churches are being responsible amd under this bill, doctors, hospitals and healthcare providers are being punished all at the expense of wrongdoers to enrich liability insurance carriers.

There is a good reason why the collateral source rule has been the law in this country since the 1800s and that is to prevent wrongdoers from escaping responsibility and their insurance carriers denying claims for 4 to 5 years after an innocent family suffers injuries and being able to benefit and abuse charity, doctors, hospitals, and the public at large.

The current bill pending before the legislature is wrong and the collateral source rule is just, fair and righteous.

If the negligent Hotrod and/or a drunken driver kills your spouse, should that driver get a break because you invested in life insurance?

If you are injured and cannot work, should the person responsible for your injuries and stripped your ability to work pay less because you invested in disability insurance?

If you are injured and must seek medical care, should the person who sent you to the emergency room gain a financial advantage simply because you invested in health insurance?

Should the doctors, hospitals and healers, who did nothing wrong, be punished by being stuck with a discounted fee because the wrongdoer caused the need for this treatment and delayed paying the claims?

Should churches and charities have to absorb the cost the wrongdoer caused because the liability carrier would not pay?

Obviously the answer to these questions should be a resounding “No”.

The collateral source rule has been around for hundreds of years because it is fair, just and based in righteous fairness. This proposed statute is not fair, just, or righteous.

TORT REFORM EQUALS UNCONSTITUTIONAL SOCIALISM.

The proposed legislation in the State of Tennessee capping a jury verdict is unconstitutional in both our Federal and State Constitutions. Thomas Jefferson and our founding fathers founded this nation with the right to a trial by jury of our peers on all issues, not just the issues that high-paid lobbyists or special interest groups will allow us to have.

Any capping of non-economic or punitive damages is unconstitutional, unjust, and unfair. The proposed cap on punitive damages, aside from being unconstitutional, is outrageous. I have noticed billboards through the Nashville area which state “Stop lawsuit abuse” attempting to promote this tort reform agenda. If you follow the money, the funding for these tort reform initiatives comes from BIG companies (Tobacco, Oil, Auto Manufacturers, Insurance and Financial Service Institutions). These corporate entities are attempting to bribe the legislature.

Examples of why we need punitive damages that are determined by the jury are the famous Ford Pinto cases. This involved a manufacturer who knew the Ford Pintos were defective and could and would explode burning innocent people alive but Ford had done the statistical math to know exactly how many people would be burned alive and perish as a result of this product defect. Ford then determined that many people would not sue and that the few that actually sought their lawyers and made it to court and did eventually prevail at trial would not cost them as much as a recall. Therefore, Ford decided it was more cost effective to pay off the few families that did bring a lawsuit rather than do the right thing and recall this dangerous product preventing thousands of people, (mothers, fathers, children, and grandparents) from burning alive.

Punitive damages are in place to protect society from this type of egregious conduct. The people attempting to cap punitive damages are these corporate entities who are spending billions of dollars on their propaganda to cap punitive damages and want to be able to make economic decisions to kill and maim innocent people in the name of profit without paying the consequences. Our forefathers knew that punitive damages would be necessary to protect and prevent harm to our population.

We all know we should be entitled to buy a vehicle free of defect so that it doesn’t explode as in the Ford Pinto case. We also do not want polluters to be able to poison our water supply with mercury and lead, etc., as a business and economic decision because there is no threat of punitive damages. Punitive damages are rare in Tennessee but when they are awarded, they keep us all safer.

The current legislature is socialistic in nature pure and simple. Socialism would tell us how much we can pay for a meal at a restaurant. If a restaurant meal is capped at no more than $5.00, we all know that would be absurd and socialism. Socialism would tell you how much you can pay for a car, e.g. $9,000.00, and no more than that amount . We would all agree that is socialism and absurd.

The legislation being proposed would tell us that the life of a child or a mother or a grandparent is only worth $750,000.00 regardless of the facts of the case. This is Socialism!

The Prophet, Amos, spoke of the evil and wickedness of the wealthy attempting to close the courthouse doors to the poor. This legislation is nothing more than an attempt to close the courthouse doors when people are significantly harmed by wrongdoers. This is unjust, unfair and wicked and must not be supported.

The only caps necessary are to cap the fees of the high paid lobbyists and campaign contributions of the wrongdoers funding these pursuits in the name of greed, big tobacco, oil (BP included), pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies and financial institutions (remember Enron).

If one looks to the facts regarding litigation in the State of Tennessee, the jury awards in this state are very conservative and punitive damages are reserved for only cases involving the most egregious conduct.

As it relates to non-economic damages, we do not hear about the majority of Plaintiffs who do not have a significant recovery but only those very rare Plaintiffs in this state with large awards.

This proposed legislation capping damages is as ridiculous as stating there should be a minimum award for every case filed regardless of the facts.

This unconstitutional, socialistic legislation must be stopped because our constitution was established to “. . .promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity” and not just protect the interest of BIG tobacco, oil, pharmaceutical, insurance companies and big financial service institutions.

We as a society do not want more exploding cars (Ford Pinto), mercury laced, polluted water (BP), or financial service wrongdoers (Enron) to get a free ride. Without the protection and checks and balances provided by our Federal and State Constitutions, these entities are able to buy legislation through lobbyist and campaign donations which is an absolute outrage.

The prophet Amos spoke of the wickedness of shutting the courthouse doors to the citizens by the wealthy and that is exactly what is being proposed in these “Tort Reform” bills.

The current legislature has lost touch with reality and have forgotten from whence they came.