Bergen County Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Is S Chip the Beginning of Socialized Medicine?

Karen Gatlin — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 09:32:42 GMT

Congress recently enacted S Chip, a program that provides medical coverage for a large percentage of American children. The legisatlion had been vetoed by Former President Bush on two occasions. Critics claim that the costly program is simply a means of expanding government control of health care, easing America into a system of socialized medicine. Medicare provides medical coverage for persons over 65, and Medicaid covers the low income population. After expanding coverage of children, the next step would be creation of a program to cover the remaining population. Sen. Tom Daschle, proposed, Secretary of Health and Human Services, has proposed requiring coverage to all Americans as well as creating of a board to oversee medical decisions. Whether this board would limit the kind of medications or treatments available for a particular disease or medical condition remains to be seen. Should medical practitioners now worry that government will control many medical decisions? Should we?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin

Insurers Squeeze Consumers to Boost Profits

Donald Caminiti — Tue, 18 Nov 2008 15:35:24 GMT

LawyersUSA (11/13, Atkins) reported that a study by the American Association for Justice indicated that "insurance companies are putting the squeeze on consumers in an effort to boost profits" as the economic turmoil increases. The AAJ report contends that insurers' "tactics include denying more claims, using confusing policy language, discriminating based on credit score and retroactively canceling healthcare policies for consumers with serious illnesses," policies which "hurt consumers." Jon Haber, AAJ CEO said, "Insurance companies are preying on cash-strapped consumers with tough tactics to increase profits." He added, "The current challenges facing American families are only compounded when their insurance company plays hardball in their greatest time of need."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Room Fans May reduce SIDS Risk

Karen Gatlin — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 11:19:47 GMT

NBC Nightly News (10/6, story 8, 0:20, Williams) reported, "There's a new study showing that the simple act of placing a fan in the room of a newborn can cut down on the chances of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS)."

In fact, researchers at the Kaiser Permanente's division of research in Oakland, Calif., said that "having a fan on when a baby slept reduced the risk of SIDS by 72 percent," the CBS Evening News (10/6, story 10, 0:25, Couric) added.

The work in the Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine "is the latest evidence to suggest that a baby's sleep environment is a critical factor in the risk of SIDS, which is diagnosed when an infant's sudden death cannot be explained by other factors," the New York Times (10/7, Parker-Pope) notes. Although the "study was not designed to identify why fans make a difference," the Oakland team "said they thought that by circulating air, fans lowered the risk of 'rebreathing' exhaled carbon dioxide."

Moreover, the "use of a fan in a room with a temperature higher than 69 degrees Fahrenheit was associated with a 94 percent decreased risk of SIDS, compared with no fan use," the Wall Street Journal (10/7, Dooren) points out. Starting in "the mid-1990s, it's been recommended that infants be placed on their backs to sleep rather than their stomachs." That "recommendation, along with others such as sleeping on a firm mattress and avoiding soft bedding, was linked to a more than 50 percent decline in SIDS deaths from 1992 to 2003." http://tinyurl.com/4pqngr

Yet, the "new study...offers another way to make sure babies get enough air," the AP (10/7, Johnson) points out. The team "interviewed mothers of 185 infants who died from SIDS and mothers of 312 infants of similar race and age." After taking "into account other risk factors," the investigators "found that fan use was associated with a 72 percent lower risk of SIDS," and "only three percent of the babies who died had a fan on in the room during their last sleep, the mothers reported," compared to the "12 percent of the babies who lived." http://tinyurl.com/532jdr

The San Francisco Chronicle (10/6, Fernandez) http://tinyurl.com/3hhlla quoted lead investigator Dr. De-Kun Li as saying, "We didn't see any downsides to our finding to use fans.But there are common-sense safety issues. If you have toddlers, be sure they don't put their fingers into the fan." The San Jose Mercury News (10/7, Goldston), HealthDay (10/6, Gordon), MedPage Today (10/6, Neale), http://tinyurl.com/4qv7mb and WebMD (10/6, Boyles) http://tinyurl.com/4gtauc also covered the story.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin

Health Tourists

Karen Gatlin — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 11:58:51 GMT

An industry known as "health tourism" is growing as more health consumers seek less expensive, as well as quality, medical care. An example is the United Arab Emirates which has embarked on a plan of offering health care to tourists in expectation that it can reap $50 billion dollars a year for offering an alternative to health care to foreign visitors. Dubai has developed "Healthcare City", which attracts tourists for quality health care services. India is also offering medical procedures such as cardiac bypass surgery which is performed in hotel like settings by physicians trained in U.S. hospitals. The attraction for tourists is that the procedures are performed at much less cost than in their home countries. Perhaps such competition will help spur changes in the United States so that more people can obtain quality care without resorting to "health tourism".

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin

The Racial Implication of Tort Reform

Donald Caminiti — Wed, 30 Jul 2008 09:00:00 GMT

The Center for Justice & Democracy (CJ&D), a nonprofit, nonpartisan consumer rights organization, today announced the publication of The Racial Implication of Tort Reform in the most recent edition of the Washington University Journal of Law & Policy (25 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 161 (2007)). The groundbreaking law review article, by CJ&D Executive Director Joanne Doroshow and CJ&D Policy Analyst Amy Widman, finds, "Whether discussing the impact of typical 'tort reform' proposals or the broad rhetoric used to support restrictions on legal rights, racial prejudice lurks behind the 'tort reform' movement." The article focuses on five major areas: laws that limit the rights of patients injured by medical malpractice; caps on compensation; restrictions on class actions; attacks on jurors by business groups; and laws that weaken the ability of those injured by racial violence to sue hate groups. Specifically: -- Medical Malpractice. Minorities receive inferior medical treatment by the health care industry and are being subjected to high rates of preventable medical errors. -- Limits on Non-Economic Damages. Limits on non-economic damages are disproportionately unfair to minorities. -- Class Action Legislation. Recent federal class action legislation created new hurdles and resulted in new and substantial limitations on access to the courts for victims of discrimination. -- Attacks on Civil Juries. Throughout recent history, business groups have specifically targeted juries in minority jurisdictions for attacks. -- Weakening Civil Rights Remedies. "Tort reform" laws weaken the only available forum for holding some perpetrators of hate crimes and hate groups accountable. Co-author Doroshow said, "So-called 'tort reform' proposals severely undermine the protections and rights afforded to racial and ethnic minorities in our country. Whether it is inferior medical care, civil rights violations or any number of other indignities and injuries that juries are asked to evaluate every day, our civil justice system provides an essential tool to combat injustice in the United States. 'Tort reform' significantly weakens this system, providing violators new immunity for their wrongdoing." Widman added, "All too often, members of minority communities are targets of violent bigotry. Successful civil lawsuits against hate groups not only directly respond to the needs of those injured by providing financial compensation, but also often provide the only effective means to put perpetrators of hate crimes and hate groups out of business." The full article is here: http://law.wustl.edu/Journal/25/DoroshowWidman.pdf

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Limiting/Abolishing Punitive Damages is a Bad Idea

Donald Caminiti — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 09:07:00 GMT

Compensatory damages are awarded in meritorious lawsuits to compensate an injured party for his or her lost wages, pain and suffering, personal injury, loss of enjoyment of life and, in particularly tragic cases, the death of a loved one.

Punitive damages, on the other hand, are awarded only in those serious cases where a jury has determined that a defendant has acted with actual malice or with a wanton and willful disregard for public safety. There is no public policy justification for granting unwarranted privilege from the consequences of such wrongdoing. Limiting punitive damages would strip individuals of the power to make reckless or malicious defendants change their misconduct. Please consider the following before voting on this very important issue:

Despite the anecdotal stories, punitive damages are rare and our court scrutinize such awards carefully. According to information obtained from New Jersey Jury Verdict and Review, less than 10 awards for punitive damages have been rendered in New Jersey since 1980 in product liability or toxic tort cases.

Nationwide, in nearly 80 percent of the products liability cases in which punitive damages were awarded, the manufacturer made a subsequent safety change, according to a study by professor Michael Rustad of Suffolk University in Boston.

Limiting punitive damages to an arbitrary level would undercut their deterrent value since reckless or malicious defendants might find it more cost effective to continue their bad behavior and risk paying punitive damages. This is precisely the decision making employed by the Ford Motor Company regarding its Pinto automobile. The company determined that it would be cheaper to sell the defectively designed car, and risk paying damage awards to injured consumers, than it would be to make the car significantly safer at a cost of $11 per car.

Society would be much worse off if injered persons were not able to hold wrongdoers accountable. The makers of asbestos certainly did not voluntarily assume responsibility for the harm they caused. The A.H. Robins Company did not offer to compensate the thousands of women injured by the Dalkon Shield. .

Given these facts, why do the proponents of this so called "reform" seek to protect reckless and malicious wrongdoers from bearing responsibility for their acts? Why do they attack jurors' judgments in awarding punitive damages, when those very same jurors are trusted to put persons to death in capital cases? Finally, why do they argue that the threat of punitive damages increases litigation costs without offering any empirical data whatsoever?

Punitive damages should be neither limited nor aboloshed since it is only the award of punitive damages that has placed accountability where it belongs -- at the door of the wrongdoer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

The Truth about Medical Malpractice Claims

Donald Caminiti — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 08:56:00 GMT

Medical malpractice costs make up only a tiny fraction of total health care costs. According to a study by the Consumer Federation of America, medical malpractice costs, as a percentage of health care costs, are at an all time low, 0.55 percent. Report author J. Robert Hunter, former Texas Insurance Commissioner and Federal Insurance Administrator, said, “Medical malpractice insurance is amazing value, considering that it covers all medical injuries for about one-half of one percent of health system costs!” Memo from to Interested Persons with attached spreadsheet prepared by J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, November 14, 2001.

Despite the hype, juries are extremely conservative while insurance companies are making huge profits. The average claims payout by medical malpractice insurance companies is about $30,000 per year and has been virtually unchanged for the last decade, according to a 2001 study by the Consumer Federation of America of actual claims paid. In fact, total insurance payouts to all claimants have hovered between $2.5 billion and $4 billion per year. Memo from to Interested Persons with attached spreadsheet prepared by J. Robert Hunter, Director of Insurance, Consumer Federation of America, November 14, 2001. By comparison, Americans spend twice that much – about $8 billion – on dog food each year. As a result, medical malpractice insurance companies are raking it in, with profits 65 percent higher than the rest of the property/casualty insurance industry over the last decade. “‘Malpractice Suits Not Driving Medical Costs Up,’ Says Group,” Times Picayune, May 5, 1999.

Medical malpractice litigation in this country is far from frivolous. In a major study released in 1999, the National Academy of Sciences Institute of Medicine found that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by medical errors in hospitals -- far more than die from car accidents, breast cancer or AIDS. Kohn, Corrigan, Donaldson, Eds., To Err is Human; Building a Safer Health System, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press: Washington, DC, 1999 (These figures vastly underestimate the magnitude of the problem since hospital patients represent only a small percentage of the total population at risk). Yet eight times as many patients are injured by medical malpractice as ever file a claim; 16 times as many suffer injuries as receive any compensation. Harvard Medical Practice Study, Patients, Doctors and Lawyers: Medical Injury, Malpractice Litigation, and Patient Compensation in New York, 1990.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Selection of N.J. State Judges

Donald Caminiti — Sat, 17 May 2008 09:49:00 GMT

New Jersey Lawyer
FORMER JUSTICE: SENATORS TOO INFLUENTIAL ON JUDGE PICKS
Former Justice Gary S. Stein says state senators have too much power over judicial appointments and that it has lowered the quality of the trial bench. During a panel discussion on the relationship between governors and the Supreme Court, Stein said senators, through senatorial courtesy, have "far more influence than the constitution contemplated." Under senatorial courtesy, senators get to approve appointments in their home counties; if they don't approve, the name won't move through the Senate. Stein said, "The quality of our trial bench depends on the discretion of the executive to pick good judges" and not on the senators. For the full story, see this week's New Jersey Lawyer or the newspaper's website, www.njlnews.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Legal Hotline Disclaimers

Donald Caminiti — Fri, 16 May 2008 09:00:00 GMT

The New Jersey Supreme Court ethics committee recently held that disclaimers for legal hotlines stating that a call does not form an attorney-client relationship are ineffective and that attorneys are responsible for following professional conduct rules during the limited time they are providing legal services on the phone.

More and more frequently, individuals seek advice on matters ranging from personal injury caused by automobile accidents, dangerous products and workplace accidents to wrongful death.

In the opinion of the committee, discussions between attorneys and individuals seeking legal advice almost always lead to a discussion of the particular facts of the case and, accordingly, a non-profit trade association may not disclaim the formation of an attorney-client relationship, as it is likely that such a relationship will arise in the course of the provision of services by the attorneys staffing the legal hotline.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Donald Caminiti

Victims of Negligence

Karen Gatlin — Mon, 12 May 2008 14:55:02 GMT

Physicians have alleged that medical malpractice lawsuits are baseless; however, when a West Virginia doctor sustained infection, additional surgeries, and continued pain following surgery by two of his fellow physicians, he did not hesitate to file a lawsuit. He asserted that the surgery was negligently performed.

Likewise, conservatives argue that Tort Reform is necessary to curb "run away" lawsuits, but when former supreme court nominee Robert Bork injured himself at a speaking event, he also did not hesitate to file suit for his injuries. The conservative Bork, who is elderly, was at the Yale Club to deliver a speech, and the club failed to provide steps and a handrail to assist him in ascending the dais. He fell backward as he was attempting to climb up the stairs, injuring both his leg and head. He suffered a contusion and hematoma in his leg as a result of the fall and required both surgery and physical therapy to minimize his injuries. He now walks with a limp. As a result, the Yale Club agreed to pay an undisclosed amount of money in settlement of the suit. Is a "tort reformer" someone who has not been the victim of someone’s negligence? Is it presumptions or bias that make some believe that most lawsuits are frivolous, only changing their opinions when they suffer the realities of such injuries?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Karen Gatlin