Litigation and Trial - Max Kennerly : Philadelphia Trial Lawyer Max Kennerly : Business and Commercial Litigation : Civil Attorney : The Beasley Firm : Philadelphia Pennsylvania

From the bought-yourself-an-appeal department:

Citing multiple trial errors, a New Jersey appeals court has reversed an $18.9 million verdict against an obstetrician whose delay in ordering a Caesarean delivery a jury found to have caused cerebral palsy in the child.

The panel found that Monmouth County Superior Court Judge Louis Locascio failed to limit the testimony of a labor-and-delivery nurse, to issue the jury a contemporaneous limiting instruction on the nurse's testimony and to allow the defendant to admit into evidence a report that had exculpatory value for the obstetrician.

...

Zeh, the nurse on duty during plaintiff Bonnie Kowalski's labor at Riverview Medical Center in Red Bank, N.J., testified that she repeatedly told Dr. Aravid Palav, the obstetrician, that she was concerned about the dropping fetal heart rate and believed that Kowalski required a C-section without delay.

But Palav, who had ordered Kowalski admitted to the hospital due to severe stomach pains, believed she was likely suffering from appendicitis and that the baby was not in danger.

Zeh ended up "going over his head" and reporting the issue to her charge nurse and nursing supervisor, though they never relayed her concerns to the head of obstetrics.

Kowalski's child, Brandon, suffered an intraventricular hemorrhage because of a lack of oxygen, which the plaintiffs expert said could have been avoided had he been delivered a half-hour earlier. He is afflicted with cerebral palsy and will require full-time care for life.

At trial, Zeh was allowed to testify as to her concerns about the baby's heart rate that evening, though she admitted it often was unclear whether she was reading the baby's heart rate or that of Kowalski, who was writhing in pain and thus making the monitoring difficult.

In response to my post earlier this week about emulating great trial lawyers by pushing boundaries in the courtroom, John Day, who knows a thing or two about medical malpractice trials, commented:

Your ultimate goal - win the calls you should win, lose the ones you should lose (and you will want to lose some) and win the discretionary calls.

Why would you "want to lose some?"

There's an old saying among trial lawyers that they need to be careful about exactly what evidence they try to admit and what arguments they advance, because there is always the risk that the judge will let them go forward with an improper argument, thereby causing the trial lawyer to "buy themselves an appeal," or rather a reversal on appeal.

And that's what happened in New Jersey:

When Palav objected that the potential prejudicial effect of that evidence outweighed its probative value, Locascio determined that Zeh's testimony was relevant only to Zeh's decision to go up the chain of command to press for immediate delivery, not to Palav's alleged deviations from the standard of care.

Locascio said he would explain that distinction to the jury, but Riverview objected, arguing that the court should not draw attention to any one defendant.

Locascio told counsel that allowing the testimony without the limiting instruction would be "deadly" to Palav's case. Nevertheless, the hospital and the plaintiffs continued to object, leading the judge finally to say: "Good. Let the chips fall where they will. I'll say nothing. I'm not creating an Appellate issue. Dr. Palav, start digging your grave, sir, because this is going to kill [you]."

The trial judge ended up giving an instruction to the jury at the end of the trial anyway, but, by then — at least in the appellate court's opinion — it was too late, the damage had been done. The subsequent instruction could not rectify the prejudicial effect on the jury.

Was the nurse's testimony so prejudicial that a contemporaneous instruction obviously should have been given? Not at all. But it was close enough to the line that the plaintiff's lawyer should have been worried about it, and should not have objected to the instruction.

The fact that the hospital also objected to a contemporaneous instruction from the judge — likely because the hospital wanted to pin all the blame on the doctor — probably made the plaintiff feel like they were on solid ground.

But they weren't. Medical malpractice cases truly are different. Little issues that routinely happen in other trials, like a highly-knowledgeable witness slipping from factual testimony into opinion testimony, take on exaggerated importance in medical malpractice cases. When you've got an unqualified witness arguably opining on the standard of care — no matter how close they were to the action, no matter if they are also a "medical professional" — you should thank your lucky stars the testimony is going in at all and should be more than willing to accept a contemporaneous instruction in exchange for allowing the testimony.

Of course, hindsight is 20-20. It is a lot easier for me to tell the lawyers what they should have done, now that I know the consequences, than it is to make these judgment calls in the heat of battle.

One more thing: let's not forget that this case revolves around a seriously injured child, the apparent victim of blatant malpractice (Appendicitis? Didn't follow the heartbeat? Really?), who will need care for the rest of his life. I'm of course not privy to whatever settlement offers and demands have been made, but whoever's the unreasonable holdout needs to take a step back and consider the big picture.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the big issues that's been floating around the personal injury / wrongful death world over the past few years is the extent to which states can recoup the money they spent on an injured person's care if that person later sues the person who caused the injury and obtains a settlement.

The Supreme Court gave us a partial answer in Arkansas Dept. of Health and Human Servs. v. Ahlborn:

There is no question that the State can require an assignment of the right, or chose in action, to receive payments for medical care. So much is expressly provided for by §§ 1396a(a)(25) and 1396k(a). And we assume, as do the parties, that the State can also demand as a condition of Medicaid eligibility that the recipient "assign" in advance any payments that may constitute reimbursement for medical costs. To the extent that the forced assignment is expressly authorized by the terms of §§ 1396a(a)(25) and 1396k(a), it is an exception to the anti-lien provision. See Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Servs. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U. S. 371, 383-385, and n. 7 (2003). But that does not mean that the State can force an assignment of, or place a lien on, any other portion of Ahlborn's property.

The issue became all the more pressing when the Medicare, Medicaid and SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 (“MMSEA”), effective July 1, 2009, named tort defendants as “responsible reporting entities” that also have to assess the plaintiff's Medicare / Medicaid status and ensure that those government liens have been paid. Defendants have, understandably, been annoyed by that.

Plaintiffs, of course, have already been responsible for clearing these liens.

Let's pause and consider the background of these cases: a plaintiff is injured, has some care paid for by the government, and hires an attorney. The attorney then spends his or her own time, and own money, pursuing the case, until the plaintiff — who, despite their injury and resulting hardship, has tried to hold out for an appropriate settlement figure — and the defendant reach an agreement on how much the case is worth. The attorney then takes a cut of the settlement, covering their costs and paying themselves a fee for all that time and risk they put into the case.

Then the government wants a piece. It didn't do anything to get the money, but it thinks it deserves to be reimbursed in full.

The vast majority of these claims are resolved amicably between then plaintiff's attorney and the government, with the government waiving a chunk of the claim in order to get payment now, rather than later, and to not have to litigate the issue and risk having a judge rule against them.

But sometimes the plaintiff's attorney and the government can't reach an agreement, and so have to get the court to figure it out.

The big question has been: how does a court figure it out?

We just got one answer:

In a decision that is sure to grab the attention of the personal injury bar, a federal judge has ruled that a settling plaintiff cannot be automatically required to reimburse the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare for 100 percent of her Medicaid expenses because a settlement always reflects a compromise.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Berle M. Schiller comes just a few months after lawyers at Kline & Specter secured a settlement worth nearly $12 million in a "state-created danger" suit against the Philadelphia Housing Authority over persistent mold in a home that allegedly triggered an acute asthma attack and left a teenage girl brain damaged.

The settlement in McKinney v. PHA sparked a new court battle when lawyers for DPW moved to vacate the settlement and to intervene in the suit to assert a $1.2 million lien.

...

Schiller decided instead that the proper approach was for the trial judge to "assess the factors that would have influenced the parties' settlement positions and to make an ultimate determination of what portion of the settlement represents compensation for past medical expenses."

As the judge who presided over the McKinney case through summary judgment and Daubert hearings, as well as settlement talks, Schiller concluded that the plaintiffs had settled for two-thirds of the value of the case.

That's not a perfect answer, but it's not a bad one. There's no basis for the government to claim full reimbursement for a settlement in which a claim is, by definition, compromised. There's also no easy way to figure out just how much of an overall settlement "should" be allocated to medical expenses, and it doesn't make sense to engage in full-blown litigation over that question when the case itself has been settled.

Hence the shoot-from-the-hip approach. It's not what I'd prefer — I think the plaintiff was right about the parties, who know the most about the case and the reasons for settlement, establishing the portion attributable to medical expenses — but I'll take it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today's The Legal Intelligencer includes an article titled, "Limited Liability Law May Apply in Duck Boat Accident" about the effect of the Limitation of Liability Act of 1851 on claims arising from last's weeks collision between a tugboat and a duck boat on the Delaware River.

The Limitation Act — which nominally limits the liability of a ship owner to the value of the ship itself — is a fascinating relic from a turbulent time in the United States, when whispers of war were beginning and the young agrarian nation was painfully converting to a steam-powered industrial society. The world's first commercial oil well would not be built, in Poland, and the world's first union railway station would not be built, in Indianapolis, for another two years.

With a lot of output, a big country, and not much transportation infrastructure, we needed investment in shipping, and lots of it.

Hence the Act.

Few would disagree that the Act has outlived its purpose, but it's still on the books.

It's just as well that the Legal article is subscription only, since it doesn't tell us much other than that defense lawyers think the tugboat and duck boat are free and clear while plaintiff's lawyers believe there are ways around it.

The press did a similar dance a few weeks ago, after Transocean invoked the same act to limit its liability following the catastrophic oil leak caused by the sinking of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Transocean's use of the Act so bothered Congress that they're trying to get the entire Act repealed; if that happens, this entire discussion will be rendered moot in the near future, as it should be: in our modern world of insurance, re-insurance, global finance, and limited liability companies, there's no need to give vessel owners special treatment. Ships will still be built and used, regardless of the Act.

But the Act is still on the books. I'm with the plaintiff's lawyers; there's plenty of ways to get around the Act and get these types of maritime accidents back in the state courts where they belong.

First, the Act doesn't apply if the liability of the vessel owner isn't actually at issue:

In construing the Limitation Act, this Court long ago determined that vessel owners may contest liability in the process of seeking limited liability, and we promulgated rules to that effect pursuant to our "power to regulate . . . proceedings." The "Benefactor," 103 U. S., at 244; Supplementary Rule of Practice in Admiralty 56, 13 Wall., at xiii; Supplemental Admiralty and Maritime Claims Rule F(2). Thus, we agree with respondent that a vessel owner need not confess liability in order to seek limitation under the Act. The Act and the rules of practice, however, do not create a freestanding right to exoneration from liability in circumstances where limitation of liability is not at issue. In this case, petitioner stipulated that his claim for damages would not exceed the value of the vessel and waived any claim of res judicata from the state court action concerning issues bearing on the limitation of liability. The District Court concluded that these stipulations would protect the vessel owner's right to seek limited liability in federal court. Then, out of an "abundance of caution," the court stayed the limitation proceedings so that it could act if the state court proceedings jeopardized the vessel owner's rights under the Limitation Act. 31 F. Supp. 2d, at 1170-1171. We believe nothing more was required to protect respondent's right to seek a limitation of liability.

Lewis v. Lewis & Clark Marine, Inc., 531 U.S. 438 (2001). Here, it's already been reported that K-Sea had an insurance policy* in excess of $100 million; if the plaintiffs stipulate their damages don't exceed that (which they reasonably could), then the Act's purpose has been met.

Second, even where the Act applies, there are plenty of exceptions:

The Limited Liability Act allows a vessel owner to limit its liability for any loss or injury caused by the vessel to the value of the vessel and its freight.[6] "Under the Act, a party is entitled to limitation only if it is `without privity or knowledge' of the cause of the loss."[7] If the shipowner is a corporation, "knowledge is judged by what the corporation's managing agents knew or should have known with respect to the conditions or actions likely to cause the loss."[8] Once the claimant establishes negligence or unseaworthiness, the burden shifts to the owner of the vessel to prove that negligence was not within the owner's privity or knowledge.[9]

In re Hellenic Inc., 252 F.3d 391 (5th Cir. 2001)(footnotes omitted, but they're worth reading if you're looking for more cases).

For anyone interested in the subject, the Admiralty and Maritime Law Guide has a couple cases on the Act. For anyone really interested, yesterday I went to a CLE on Boating Law and Liability — hosted, coincidentally, by Ride The Duck's maritime lawyer — that included a thick book of materials on maritime law that can be purchased, even after the CLE.

As noted by those materials, "the knowledge of a corporation necessarily is measured by the knowledge of the corporation's employees and agents." A clever plaintiff's lawyer would point out that the knowledge and negligence of the mate — the one who took the Fifth and refused to testify — is imputed back to the owners of the vessel.

All of which is to say: as nice as the Act sounds on its face to defense lawyers, that tugboat company and its insurer aren't going to just walk away from this tragedy.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As always when a major corporation is caught killing, maiming or poisoning innocent people, the apologists have come out in full force in defense of Toyota. This time, they're blaming senior citizens.

You see, old people become confused. They don't realize when they're accelerating and when they're braking. At least that's what I've been told by the usual suspects.

Don't buy it:

In the 50-second tape, crash victim Chris Lastrella begins by telling the dispatcher: “We're in a Lexus ... we're going north (state Route) 125 and our accelerator is stuck.”

The dispatcher asks where they are passing, and Lastrella is heard asking someone in the car where they are. He exclaims: “We're going 120 (mph)! Mission Gorge! We're in trouble – we can't – there's no brakes, Mission Gorge ... end freeway half mile.”

The dispatcher asks if they can turn the car off.

Lastrella doesn't answer and says repeatedly: “We are now approaching the intersection, we're approaching the intersection, we're approaching the intersection.”

The last sounds heard on the tape are someone saying “hold on” and “pray.” Lastrella says: “Oh shoot ... oh ... oh” Then a woman screams.

Killed in the crash were CHP officer Mark Saylor and his wife Cleofe who were both 45, their 13-year-old daughter Mahala, and Lastrella, 38, who was Cleofe Saylor's brother. All four lived in Chula Vista.

So much for blaming the victims for being too old to understand how to drive a car. A California Highway Patrol officer in his prime couldn't stop one of those death traps, so he, his wife, his daughter, and his brother-in-law paid with their lives because, at Toyota, Safety Is Job #2.

That case conveniently didn't make it into any of the articles blaming elderly drivers for the crashes.

Here's something else the corporate apologists won't tell you: lawsuits are the primary reason that cars are safer today than they were in the past.

In the 1970s and '80s, litigation was watched keenly by manufacturers and regulators as a kind of early warning system on safety defects, said Kelley, now semi-retired and consulting on auto product hazards from his home in Pebble Beach, Calif.

Steered by lawsuits and safety standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration after its creation in the late 1960s, automakers corrected design defects that had exposed drivers to impalement on gearshifts and lacerations from shattered auto glass.

Also in the 1960s, seat belts became widely adopted by automakers and crash tests were refined into a serious science.

The 1970s provided automakers with a wake-up call in the Grimshaw vs. Ford Motor Co. case, in which a California appeals court ordered the carmaker to pay $125 million in punitive damages to the victims of one of the Ford Pinto's fiery explosions. The huge punitive damages award followed evidence showing that Ford knew of the defect but failed to recall the vehicles for what was estimated to be an $11 repair. The award was reduced to $3.5 million in a post-verdict negotiation but nevertheless was one that signaled to the auto industry that it would be harshly sanctioned for ignoring known defects.

Improved seat belts and seat backs emerged in the 1980s, spurred by lawsuits brought on behalf of accident victims. Before three-point restraints were made mandatory a decade ago, back-seat occupants were prone to paralyzing injury when frontal crashes caused their upper bodies to fly toward the impact, smashing into seats, doors or other passengers.

Fact is: money talks. If it costs Toyota less to shuttle a few families to an untimely demise than to fix the problem, Toyota won't do it. 

Every time a car company today evaluates the safety of the car's gas tank and fuel system, an engineer, manager or lawyer at the company inevitably says,

Remember the Ford Pinto cases.

Then they check the gas tank and fuel system again. And again.

Next time a car company investigates reports of sudden acceleration, which would you prefer that engineer, manager or lawyer says,

Remember the Toyota cases.

or

Is it really worth issuing a recall?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Bruesewitz v. Wyeth. The case will decide:

Whether Section 22(b)(1) of the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986 — which expressly preempts certain design defect claims against vaccine manufacturers “if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warning” — preempts all vaccine design defect claims, regardless whether the vaccine’s side effects were unavoidable.

The relevant briefs and opinions are available at SCOTUSBlog.

There's an old saying that lawyers and judges bat around, "reasonable minds can disagree." (Of course, few people really believe that, but we all say we do.)

On the above question — in essence, whether Congress intended to wash away (i.e., "preempt") whole swaths of state-law product liability claims against vaccine manufacturers or if Congress merely intended to set up streamlined compensation for a certain class of rare but unavoidable vaccine-related injuries — the Georgia Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reached expressly opposite answers less than one year apart from one another. The Georgia Supreme Court answered "no," while the Third Circuit answered "yes." 

The Supreme Court will tell us which Court was right.

I'll leave the merits of the arguments to others. Obviously, if a state Supreme Court and a federal Court of Appeals reached opposite conclusions, then "reasonable minds can disagree." The Third Circuit's opinion is here. The Georgia Supreme Court's opinion is here. Judge for yourself.

What caught my eye was this portion of Wyeth's brief to the Supreme Court, part of their argument for why the Supreme Court should hear the case:

Today, a new litigation threat to the nation’s vaccine supply exists. Approximately 5,000 petitions are currently pending in the "Omnibus Autism Proceeding" in Vaccine Court. HRSA, National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program Statistics Report (Sep. 14, 2009, http://www.hrsa.gov/vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm. While the omnibus proceeding will decide for all of the pending cases whether there is a causal link between childhood vaccines and autism, that ruling will have no preclusive effect outside of Vaccine Court. 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-23(e). Each claimant may elect to file a civil action after proceeding through Vaccine Court. Over 350 civil actions have been filed against vaccine manufacturers in various courts with allegations that childhood vaccines caused the recipient to develop autism.

The potential deluge of post-Vaccine Court litigation could lead to the same dangerous situation that existed in the mid-1980s. The number of childhood vaccine manufacturers has not increased since the enactment of the Vaccine Act. In the United States market today, as in 1986, there is still just one manufacturer for the polio vaccine, one for MMR, and two for the DTP vaccine. Compare 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6348, with FDA/CBER, Thimerosal in Vaccines, http://www.fda.gov/CBER/vaccine/thimerosal.htm (last updated Aug. 31, 2009). Thus, what Congress said in 1986 is true today: "The loss of any of the existing manufacturers of childhood vaccines at this time could create a genuine public health hazard." 1986 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 6348.

Wyeth Brief, pp. 17-18.

At first blush, Wyeth's reasoning seems sound. The question presented by Bruesewitz v. Wyeth could determine the fate of more than 5,000 pending cases. That makes Bruesewitz v. Wyeth worthy of attention.

But that doesn't make the case necessarily worthy of the Supreme Court's attention. Outside of constitutional rulings, the Supreme Court's primary job is to interpret the laws passed by Congress, not to enact new laws or to fret over the consequences of old laws. To the extent upcoming autism litigation is a problem, that's an issue for Congress — not the Court — to address.

If, indeed, "the loss of any of the existing manufacturers of childhood vaccines at this time could create a genuine public health hazard," then Congress could step in and immediately terminate all of the pending cases by amending the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986. Congress could, for example, amend to law to clearly preempt all civil suits brought for injuries arising from polio, MMR, or DTP vaccines. 

Moreover, though 5,000 cases sure sounds like a lot, it's not really that much in the big picture. The Vioxx settlement involves ten times that many. And do you know how many cases it really turned into?

One.

Thanks to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, once litigation over a particular issue becomes too big, it can be consolidated into a single proceeding before a single judge. That's what happened to Vioxx, it's what's happening to Toyota, and it's what will happen to the Autism/Vaccine litigation. At this very moment, approximately 92,000 separate lawsuits arising from a wide variety of situations (ranging from asbestos poisoning to securities fraud) have been consolidated into a mere 310 MDL actions.

A "deluge" of one, I suppose.

And what will likely happen in that single case?

Probably the same thing that happened before the Special Masters and before the Court of Federal Claims: the plaintiffs will lose. Odds are good that the plaintiffs won't even get to a jury; all it takes is for the MDL court to find that plaintiffs' experts' theories do not satisfy Daubert and — poof — the cases are all over before a single witness testifies.

Consider this passage from the Cedillo opinion:

[...] Petitioners’ sequence of cause and effect depends upon a presence of persistent measles virus infection in Michelle’s body. However, the Special Master concluded that “the petitioners offered virtually no evidence concerning this necessary element in their proposed chain of proof– i.e., their claim that the measles virus, which they claim to persist in [autistic] children, is vaccine-strain measles virus.” Id. at *52. The Special Master also saw no logical sequence of cause and effect between the MMR vaccine and Michelle’s development of inflammatory bowel disease. Specifically, the Special Master found Dr. Krigsman’s theory that Michelle suffered from an MMR-induced inflammatory bowel disease to be factually incorrect because Michelle did not suffer from gastrointestinal inflammation, and Dr. Krigsman “gravely misunderstood the temporal history of Michelle’s gastrointestinal problems.” Id. at *114-15. The Special Master’s conclusion that Petitioners failed to demonstrate any relationship between the MMR vaccine and Michelle’s autism is eminently reasonable. He determined that they offered “virtually no evidence” to support their claim. See id. at *52.

That's a big problem. Given the amount of effort put into the case, it's hard to see the plaintiffs curing this problem down the road. Similarly, the primary study demonstrating a connection between the MMR vaccine and autism was officially retracted last month.

But we're getting ahead of ourselves with these details. The point is: if the Supreme Court agrees with the Georgia Supreme Court and finds that only claims arising from unavoidable vaccine injuries are preempted, the sky will not fall. Not even if the autism litigation goes forward.

Most likely, the sky won't even move at all.

And if it moves too much, then Congress can put it back, just like they did in 1986.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The producers of the Oscar-nominated The Hurt Locker, which Roger Ebert* deemed the second best film of the decade, were just sued by Sgt. Jeffrey Sarver, a former explosive ordinance disposal technician with the 788th Ordinance Company, with whom journalist Mark Boal — the writer of The Hurt Locker — was “embedded” on assignment for Playboy Magazine.

The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (where Sgt. Sarver lived during the relevant times), gives some examples of the similarities:

The title “The Hurt Locker” – Plaintiff originated this term and said it often around colleagues while in Iraq. Defendant BOAL took interest in this phrase and asked Plaintiff what the phrase meant. Because Plaintiff was told Defendant BOAL was collecting information for the sake of documenting a factual report about Army EOD in general, Plaintiff acquiesced with BOAL’s request, which he said often while during his deployment in Iraq;

 “War is a Drug” – Another phrase Plaintiff used when talking to Defendant BOAL;

 “Will James”, played by Jeremy Renner” – Mr. Renner is essentially the same age and height; to personate Sgt. Sarver, Renner’s hair was dyed blonde, and Renner impersonated Sgt. Sarver’s persona down to the smallest detail, including the replication of Sgt. Sarver’s West Virginia accent, dialect, expressions, mannerisms, personality, and even dress habits (i.e. rolling his sleeves in the exact same manner as Sarver); succinctly stated, Renner acts and behaves just like Plaintiff5 throughout the movie;

Same Military & Family Background – Just like Plaintiff, character “Will James” is a former Army Ranger who has a young son who lives with his ex-wife back home; Renner is also referenced as a “red neck” and “trailer trash”;

Same EOD Missions – Most of the EOD missions depicted in the movie are identical to Plaintiff’s, including the same camps where the EOD team was based (ie Camp Victory), and the same manner in which they were handled - as documented in the Playboy Article;

[…]

Renner struggles with personal, family relationships just like, and in the same manner as, Plaintiff;

Renner drinking alcohol after successful missions;

Renner setting the record for the most IEDs disarmed by any single soldier;

As THR, Esq. notes,

According to legal experts on this topic, Sarver will need to overcome First Amendment protections that give broad protections on speech. Just putting someone's life story up on screen may not be enough.

Sarver's claims may be stronger if he, himself, had written about his experience in Iraq. Had Sarver written about his war stories, he might have been able to pursue a copyright claim that producers of "Hurt Locker" had violated his expression.

Sarver's best case may actually be if producers of "Hurt Locker" got things wrong. Potentially, Sarver could claim that "Will James" is just a thinly veiled depiction of him, but that they had put him in false light and defamed him with dishonest treatment about his character. We have seen these types of "libel-in-fiction" claims come up recently. 

Hence, the complaint continues:

Though the movie clings to the plaintiff’s likeness and personal circumstances throughout the movie, Plaintiff is also defamed in placed in a false light in several scenes, such as (1) the scene where Plaintiff explains to his young son that he essentially does not love him, and that the only thing plaintiff loves now is “war”. The movie ends by showing Plaintiff back in Iraq, starting another deployment mission; and (2) the portrayal of Plaintiff as a reckless, gung-ho war addict who has a morbid fascination with death which causes him to carelessly risk both his and his colleagues’ lives in the theater of war, simply to feel the thrill of cheating death.

The Complaint alleges seven counts:

• Misappropriation of Name & Likeness
• False Light Invasion of Privacy
• Defamation
• Breach of Contract
• Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
• Fraud
• Negligent Misrepresentation

As far as I can tell, Sgt. Sarver will have little trouble meeting most of the elements of misappropriation, with one exception:

In order that there may be liability under the rule stated in this Section, the defendant must have appropriated to his own use or benefit the reputation, prestige, social or commercial standing, public interest or other values of the plaintiff's name or likeness. It is not enough that the defendant has adopted for himself a name that is the same as that of the plaintiff, so long as he does not pass himself off as the plaintiff or otherwise seek to obtain for himself the values or benefits of the plaintiff's name or identity. Unless there is such an appropriation, the defendant is free to call himself by any name he likes, whether there is only one person or a thousand others of the same name. Until the value of the name has in some way been appropriated, there is no tort.

Restatement of the Law, Second, Torts, § 652, cmt c (emphases added); see Jeffries v. Whitney E. Houston Acad. P.T.A., 2009 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1895, at *9 (App. Div. Jul. 20, 2009)("the purpose of an appropriation of likeness claim is to vindicate the property interest the plaintiff has in his or her name or likeness."). Misappropriation claims typically arise from false endorsements; here, however, Sarver certainly was not represented as directly endorsing the film. The challenge for his lawyers will be arguing that the use of his life story is sufficient "likeness" that it constitutes a de facto endorsement of the story.

False light and defamation are highly similar claims, and often analyzed together. As THR, Esq. said, there’s precedent out there for “libel-in-fiction,” and Sgt. Sarver’s case seems similar to the The Red Hat Club case linked above: taking an already incredible, but nonetheless real, story and scandalizing it some more. It’s a little bit harder for Sgt. Sarver here, though, since it seems that anyone who recognized him from the film would also know the differences between him and the character, and the complaint admits that he already had substantial family troubles and that he broke military regulations, such as drinking after missions. Those issues, however, are typically issues for a jury, not a judge, to decide.

The remaining claims are intriguing, though none are a good fit to the facts. Regarding breach of contract, it doesn’t appear that Sgt. Sarver was an intended third-party beneficiary to Boal’s “embedding” agreement with the U.S. Department of Defense, though he might be an implied third-party beneficiary. Without the contract in hand, it’s hard to say what will happen here. (One of the commentators at THR, Esq., linked to some of the Department of Defense embedding guidelines, which don't seem to be as strict as the complaint implies.)

The intentional infliction of emotional distress claim will likely go nowhere. The complaint essentially admits there’s no evidence the producers of the film intended to cause Sgt. Sarver harm. See Ortiz v. Ocean County Prosecutor's Office, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29274, at *15–16 (D.N.J. Nov. 22, 2005)("To sustain such a claim, the conduct at issue must be 'so outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency and to be regarded as atrocious, and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.”).

Similarly, the fraud and negligent misrepresentations claims will likely be dismissed. Most courts require some degree of explicit economic loss for these claims. McClellan v. Feit, 376 N.J. Super. 305, 313, 870 A.2d 644, 648 (App. Div. 2005)("Negligent misrepresentation constitutes an incorrect statement, negligently made and justifiably relied on, which results in economic loss."). It might be morally wrong to trick someone into revealing their personal story, but it’s not legally compensable as fraud or misrepresentation unless they're also tricked out of some money.

An interesting case to watch. Depending on Sgt. Sarver’s goals / demands, I’d expect a somewhat prompt settlement, though perhaps not until after the inevitable motion to dismiss is decided.  

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

At the Fulton County Daily Report:

For $95, plaintiffs lawyers can buy a book that teaches them how to appeal to jurors' basic survival instincts, those that emanate from humans' "Reptilian" brains. ...

But in a DeKalb County wrongful death trial last month, [Plaintiffs lawyer Don] Keenan found that defense lawyers will also buy the book, "Reptile: The 2009 Manual of the Plaintiff's Revolution" -- and use it against him.

Representing a movie theater and a security company accused of not doing enough to prevent a fatal gang shooting in the theater parking lot, W. Winston Briggs and Matthew G. Moffett read from the book and referred to it during closing arguments.

One of their PowerPoint slides read, "Let's see if we can scare them/It could have been anyone killed out there ... because it's a public danger there ... but if you give us $ that will somehow eliminate this danger/They call this their 'reptile' strategy."

The jury rendered a defense verdict.

Here's what I don't understand: how is a book written by the plaintiff's lawyer relevant to the facts of the case?

The Georgia Rules of Evidence provide:

Evidence must relate to the questions being tried by the jury and bear upon them either directly or indirectly. Irrelevant matter should be excluded.

The jury wasn't asked their thoughts and feelings about Mr. Keenan's advocacy methods. They weren't compelled, by force of the state, to leave their work and their families to render a verdict on the Reptile book. They were there because, as the article says, "21-year-old Jesus Silencio was shot to death in the parking lot of the Regal Hollywood 24 movie theater on Interstate 85" and his father, on Mr. Silencio's behalf, brought suit against the theater and its security company.

Reptile has nothing to do with those facts. If the book suggests lawyers do anything inappropriate, that, too, is irrelevant: if a lawyer uses improper advocacy methods at trial, the judge will give corrective instructions to the jury or, if need be, declare a mistrial.

The case was about, and should have remained about, Mr. Sliencio's claims against the theater. Somehow, it became a referendum on Mr. Keenan, and an unfair one at that. Was Mr. Keenan allowed to show the jury how many times the defense lawyers have been threatened with sanctions for spoliating evidence? Could he have copies of all the seminars at the Defense Research Institute that the defense lawyers attended? Was he allowed to introduce evidence establishing how insurance companies — including the Defendants' insurer, the real party at interest — spend millions every year on propaganda to taint juror's perceptions of the civil justice system?

Or were the defense lawyers allowed to cast stones from their glass houses?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

One of the true gems of the Internet is TED (Technology, Entertainment, Design), a nonprofit that invites luminaries from a wide variety of fields to give brief presentations about their signature ideas. A quick googling of "Best TED Talks" is well worth the hours of education and inspiration that will ensue.

I was thus disappointed to see that TED invited Philip K. Howard to talk about "Four ways to fix a broken legal system."

I have debunked Mr. Howard's work before (see my thoughts on his "Life Without Lawyers," his "health courts," and his claims about public support for tort reform). The bulk of his talk presents more of the same argument-by-anecdotes and generalized assertions that don't withstand a moment's scrutiny. Despite his claim around the 14:00 mark, I can safely assure my readers that we, as a society, do in fact still have seesaws, swingsets, and jungle gyms. Moreover, his overall argument that these problems are so insidious that you don't even notice them is, to me, unpersuasive.

About halfway through, Mr. Howard moves onto his four propositions, which are:

1. Judge law mainly by its effect on society, not individual situations
2. Trust in law is an essential condition of freedom. Distrust skews behavior towards failure
3. Law must set boundaries protecting an open field of freedom, not intercede in all disputes
4. To rebuild boundaries of freedom, two changes are essential: simplify the law and restore authority to judges and officials to apply law.

To call these propositions "vague" is an understatement.

That said, I generally agree with the first three. Indeed, it seems the irony of Mr. Howard's first proposition was lost on him; although his talk only mentions the former, for each funny story of a fishing lure with a warning label, there's a car manufacturer that bragged about avoiding a recall and ended up needlessly and carelessly endangering millions of people.

The fourth proposition, however, is where Mr. Howard and I diverge. It's not that I believe the law shouldn't be simple or that judges shouldn't apply the law; of course I do. I just don't believe it how he means it, which is to deny individuals the right to a jury trial.

But there's a bigger problem with his talk: the "authority to judges and officials to apply law" he claims should be "restored" never existed, and for good reason.

As part of his simplification argument, Mr. Howard gives, as an example, the United States Constitution. It's "only 16 pages" yet "worked well for over 200 years." Let's take a look at the Seventh Amendment thereto:

In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

(See the link for primary sources on the Amendment.)

I don't know what Mr. Howard thinks the words "common law" and "rules of the common law" mean there, but to the Framers of the Constitution, "common law" referred to hundreds of years of confusing — and sometimes contradictory — English court opinions.

So much for simplification.

But simplification isn't really what Mr. Howard wants; he wants to get rid of "the right of trial by jury."

That's not "rebuilding" freedom, nor is it "restoring" the way the Founders intended the civil justice system to work. It is a rescission of the freedoms guaranteed by the Seventh Amendment, which expressly preserved the same right to jury trial that was embodied in the Magna Carta and was recognized long before.

Indeed, the English "common law" of which the Framers were so enamored did not give judges any "authority" to usurp the fact-finding role of the jury. Mr. Howard claims that he wants to give judges the power "to apply law," but they have always had that power -- what Mr. Howard really wants is to give judges the power to determine facts, a power that the Framers of the Constitution expressly denied them.

Mr. Howard doesn't want to fix the legal system, he wants to break it.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Sometimes, a police officer's hunch is right:

Columbia [Missouri] Police Officer Jessica McNabb pulled over then-19-year-old Daniel Sanders at Stadium Boulevard and Audubon Drive for running a red light and failing to use his headlights at night. Sanders didn't have a license. He asked for an attorney almost immediately.

After a search of the trunk, McNabb found the body of Sanders' mother beneath a tire — next to a new shovel with the price tag still on it.

Sometimes not:

Jordan Miles, who is black, thought his life was in jeopardy when three white men jumped out of a car on the night of January 11 as he walked not far from his home.

"My son tried to run thinking his life was in jeopardy," Terez Miles said. "He made three steps before he slipped and fell." After that, she said, the [Pittsburgh] police used a stun gun and beat him, pulling out a chunk of his hair.

The criminal complaint says the officers, considering Jordan Miles' appearance suspicious, got out of the car and identified themselves as police. He tried to flee, fell, and then struggled to escape.

The officers "delivered 2-3 closed fist strikes to Miles' head/face with still no effect," and then a "knee strike to Miles' head causing him to momentarily stop resisting," so that he could be handcuffed, the document says.

Miles' mother said the officers did not identify themselves as police to her son, a viola player and student at the city's Creative and Performing Arts High School.

The complaint says the police officers believed Miles was engaged in criminal activity and possibly armed with a "large heavy object." The object turned out to be a bottle of Mountain Dew.

There's a law for both:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Ironically, Daniel Sanders might have a better chance of avoiding a conviction for his mother's murder than Jordan Miles has of recovering compensation for his injuries.

Last year, the Supreme Court held in Arizona v. Gant that the Fourth Amendment prohibits "a vehicle search incident to a recent occupant’s arrest after the arrestee has been secured and cannot access the interior of the vehicle," with a limited exception for such searches "when it is reasonable to believe that evidence of the offense of arrest might be found in the vehicle."

Sanders was not pulled over or arrested for his mother's murder, so the exception doesn't apply. There's no doubt that he was "secured" — he didn't even put up a fight, he just asked for his lawyer.

His lawyer has moved to exclude from the trial all evidence found from the search of Sanders' car, including, of course, his mother's body:

In that motion, [Sanders' lawyer] Slusher said McNabb continued to question Sanders after he asked for an attorney and that the search of the car was conducted without a warrant or probable cause. Slusher characterized the search and the continued questioning as unconstitutional and thus inadmissible in trial.

He might win it. I'm sure the district attorney's office is burning the midnight oil to find some daylight in Arizona v. Gant.*

Returning to Miles, it's quite possible that the officers identified themselves as police and that Miles didn't hear them. Police confrontations are often fraught with confusion. Consider this instance:

Defendant Murphy approached the driver's side window and asked Plaintiff to produce his identification and credentials for inspection. (Frohner Dep. at 39.) Plaintiff, who kept his credentials in the door pocket of the driver's side door when driving, (Pl.'s Br. Ex. C at 4), began to reach down to retrieve his credentials. (Frohner Dep. at 39.) As Plaintiff was reaching down, Defendant Murphy shouted at Plaintiff, "keep your hands where I can see them." (Id. at 39-40.) Plaintiff, "[n]ot immediately understanding what was transpiring," continued to reach for his credentials in the door pocket, which prompted Defendant Murphy, who by this time had drawn his firearm, to again shout to Plaintiff to keep his hands in view. (Id. at 39-42.) Plaintiff complied with Defendant Murphy's second order and ceased reaching down to the door pocket. (Id. at 40.)

Frohner v. City of Wildwood, 07-1174 (D.N.J. 2008).

Plaintiff there — who was almost shot — was an on-duty undercover FBI agent. He was approached by a uniformed police officer who had pulled him over in a marked police car. Yet, even he didn't "immediately understand what was transpiring."

Consider what Miles would have "immediately understood" when three men in plainclothes jumped out of a car and started chasing him.

To win in a civil lawsuit, though, Miles has to show more than that the officers made a mistake.

First, he has to show his constitutional rights were violated. Then, he must overcome qualified immunity by showing "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Curley v. Klem, 499 F.3d 199, 206-07 (3d Cir. 2007). Neither is easy to prove; most plaintiffs alleging violations of their constitutional rights lose their cases.

Miles has two constitutional rights that were potentially violated: the right to be free from false arrest and the right not to be subjected to excessive force during an arrest. I don't know what about his "appearance" was "suspicious," but the article reports "the police officers believed Miles was engaged in criminal activity and possibly armed with a large heavy object." From that, we can presume their nominal purpose was to perform a Terry v. Ohio stop and frisk to see if the Mountain Dew was an illegal weapon. If either the judge or the jury believes that, then the officers (really, the City of Pittsburgh, which will indemnify them) are free from liability for the false arrest claim.

When it comes to the excessive force claim:

In deciding whether challenged conduct constitutes excessive force, a court must determine the objective reasonableness of the challenged conduct, considering the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. Other factors include the duration of the officer's action, whether the action takes place in the context of effecting an arrest, the possibility that the suspect may be armed, and the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time.

Couden v. Duffy, 446 F.3d 483, 496-97 (3d Cir. 2006). 

Hence the emphasis on the Mountain Dew: the officers want to justify their conduct by arguing "the possibility that the suspect may be armed." It also likely that, at some point, Miles was "actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight," given that he thought he was being assaulted. Such resistance, under excessive force precedent, makes the officers' punching and kicking less "objectively unreasonable."

After showing all of the above, Miles must also show the judge "it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted" to overcome qualified immunity. Miles can't just show what the officers did was wrong; he has to show it was so wrong that the officers had to know it was illegal.

Can Miles do that? Maybe so. Then again, a lot of constitutional rights / qualified immunity cases — like Curley v. Klem, in which a police officer was accidentally shot — end with a jury verdict for the defendant and a speech from the appellate court like so:

The mistake Klem made has undoubtedly been terrible in its long-term consequences for Officer Curley and his family, and we do not for a moment discount the pain, sorrow, expense, and frustration that it has visited on them in their innocence. But a mistake, though it may be terrible in its effects, is not always the equivalent of a constitutional violation. ... "[P]olice officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation." Graham, 490 U.S. at 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865. Those were the circumstances facing both Trooper Klem and Officer Curley at the George Washington Bridge toll plaza. Viewed from that perspective, Saucier, 533 U.S. at 205, 121 S.Ct. 2151, the seizure effected by the mistaken shooting was not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. It therefore was not a constitutional violation.

Courts of law, not of justice.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

JURIST Paper Chase reports:

US security firm Blackwater [JURIST news archive] on Wednesday reached a settlement agreement in seven federal lawsuits filed by Iraqi citizens. The suits claimed that Blackwater, now known as Xe, created a reckless culture [AP report] that resulted in numerous deaths, including the deaths of 17 Iraqi civilians [JURIST reports] in September 2007 and the 2006 killing of an Iraqi guard. The suits accused Blackwater founder Erik Prince of personal responsibility. The terms of the settlement have not been made public, but Xe said in a statement that it is "pleased" with the resolution.

The settlement comes just a week after after a US judge dismissed charges [JURIST reoprt] against five guards indicted for their involvement in the September 2007 killings. Judge Richardo Urbina of the US District Court for the District of Columbia [official website] dismissed [opinion, PDF] voluntary manslaughter and weapons charges against the five guards, finding that statements were obtained in violation of the Constitution.

Susan Burke, who represents the plaintiffs, previously posted her response to Blackwater's motion to dismiss in the case online.

To say the allegations are shocking would be an understatement:

These Complaints allege that Mr. Prince acted contrary to, and in violation of, United
States government policies and instructions. Through their actions, Blackwater seriously harmed the United States and violated the law. See, e.g., Abtan/617 Compl. ¶ 60.

These Complaints allege that Mr. Prince fostered a culture of lawlessness, and encouraged employees to act in the company’s financial interests at the expense of innocent human life. See, e.g., Sa’adoon/615 Compl. ¶¶ 16, 18, 25-29; Albazzazz/616 Compl. ¶¶ 13, 14; Abtan/617 Compl. ¶¶ 2, 3, 49-57; Hassoon/618 Compl. ¶¶ 31-35, 46, 47, 80-85; Rabea/645 Compl. ¶¶ 1, 13-21. Collectively, these Complaints describe with specificity multiple examples of Mr. Prince’s men killing and wounding innocent Iraqis. For example, the Hassoon/618 Complaint describes a killing as follows: “On July 1, 2007, a driver named Wala’a was driving a minibus for three related families who were going to Baghdad airport to apply for passports. The three families included parents with four children, including a three-month old baby; an uncle; and a cousin and his wife. As the families were returning from the airport, six Xe-Blackwater vehicles, including three with turrets, surrounded the minivan and opened fire for absolutely no reason. The Xe-Blackwater shooters killed the nine-year boy. The Xe-Blackwater shooters shot the mother in the back as she bent over, trying to protect the three-month old daughter from being shot. She was unsuccessful, as the baby was shot in the face. The Xe-Blackwater shooters hit the father and the uncle. They shot at, but missed, the two other children. The Xe-Blackwater shooters also hit the cousin, Sadiq Ahmed Ali. They shot at but missed his wife, Khalida Jasim Mohammed, and the driver. Hassoon/618 Compl. ¶¶ 50-56. The other Complaints are to like effect, spelling out in detail the dates and times of the killings. For example, the Abtan/617 Complaint describes the Nisur Square shootings: “On September 16, 2007, heavily-armed Blackwater mercenaries (known in Blackwater parlance as “shooters”) working in Iraq began firing on a crowd of innocent civilians without justification, resulting in multiple deaths and injuries.” Abtan/617 Compl. ¶ 2. The acts against each Plaintiff are detailed. See, e.g., Abtan/617 Compl. ¶ 17 (stating “Plaintiff Haider Ahmed Rabe’a is a 32-year old Baghdad resident who was seriously injured by Xe-Blackwater shooters when they shot him in both legs as he was trying to flee from his car to escape the gunfire.”) Abtan/617 Compl. ¶ 17

...

As testified to under penalty of perjury by John Doe No. 2, Mr. Prince views himself as a Christian crusader tasked with eliminating Muslims and the Islamic faith from the globe. Decl. John Doe No. 2 ¶ 9. Mr. Prince intentionally deployed to Iraq certain men who shared his vision of Christian supremacy, and encouraged them to kill Iraqis. Decl. John Doe No. 2 ¶¶ 10-11. In addition to his Christian supremacist views, Mr. Prince was also motivated by greed. He knowingly deployed unsuitable candidates for carrying lethal weaponry because deployments meant more money. Decl. John Doe No. 2 ¶ 12. Mr. Prince ignored the advice and pleas from certain employees, who sought to stop the deployments and resulting killings of innocent Iraqis. Decl. John Doe No. 2 ¶ 13. See also Decl. John Doe No. 1 which describes additional deaths; and Exhibit C, in which one of Mr. Prince’s men admits to killing innocent Iraqis.

Plaintiffs brought suit under three statutes: Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), Alien Tort Statute ("ATS"), and War Crimes Act ("WCA"). Blackwater's motion to dismiss was still pending when the case was settled.

Dismiss? How could someone get away with shooting a baby in the face?

Judicial politics. It doesn't matter if Congress passed at least three separate acts (RICO, ATS, WCA) making organized murder abroad illegal. It doesn't matter if two successive Presidents — one Republican, one Democratic — refused to grant private contractors immunity.

All a private contractor needs is a conservative judicial activist and even a dozen Iraqis who "were beaten, electrocuted, raped, subjected to attacks by dogs, and otherwise abused by private contractors" will have their case dismissed, like in Saleh / Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation et al.

Ironically, the dismissal of the criminal case probably encouraged Blackwater to settle. Plaintiffs' lawyers normally welcome simultaneous criminal prosecution of the defendants (for a host of reasons), and I imagine Burke did, too. Here, however, in light of the extraordinary circumstances, Blackwater may have felt the dismissal of the criminal charges offered them an opportunity to wrap everything up and retreat back into the shadows.

Where they can get back to business as usual.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

That's one way to lose millions of dollars:

Disbarred lawyer Kenneth Heller's refusal to turn over files in a matter that ultimately was resolved with a $3.7 million settlement was "symptomatic" of a 24-year record of "utter contempt for the judicial system," Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein wrote, quoting from an opinion of the appeals court in Manhattan that disbarred Heller in 2004.

Bernstein's ruling in In re Ruby G. Emanuel, 97-44969, denied Heller any share in the $1.2 million the judge had awarded to the law firm of Jacoby & Meyers, which took over from Heller the wrongful death case of James Emanuel, a stevedore who was fatally injured in a 1992 accident at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.

...

Following Heller's disbarment [for misconduct in an unrelated case], Ms. Emanuel retained Jacoby & Meyers to handle the retrial in state court.

The law firm asked Heller to forward his files in the matter, but Heller refused, even though, Judge Bernstein noted, "terminated lawyers normally send their files promptly to new counsel to be sure that the interests of the client are protected."

In resisting the surrender of his files, Bernstein recounted, Heller provided different estimates of the value of his work for Ms. Emanuel.

During Jacoby & Meyers' 2 1/2 year quest to secure the files, Heller offered various explanations as to what had happened to them -- lost in a house upstate, damaged by a flood, discarded by workers -- as the case was passed among five judges in Manhattan and the Bronx.

Eventually, the court declared Heller in contempt and issued sanctions, causing Heller to flee, after which deputies raided his office looking for the files, to no avail.

$3.7 million doesn't come close to the actual damages. The decedent was paralyzed from the neck down after a 45-foot fall and spent 20 months in the hospital before he died. In the original trial (in which Heller represented the plaintiff), a jury unsurprisingly awarded $25 million.

But because Heller didn't turn over the file:

Jacoby & Meyers only had the record on appeal to work with in negotiating a settlement, Michael S. Feldman, the firm's lead attorney on the case, said in an interview.

Heller's files consisted of 43 boxes of material, while the record on appeal filled only two boxes, Feldman said. The defendant's records in the underlying death case had been destroyed in the Sept. 11 attack on the World Trade Center where its law firm, Hill Betts & Nash, had its offices, Feldman added.

"We had to proceed without videos and photographs of Mr. Emanuel" who was paralyzed from the neck down as a result of a 45-foot fall as he was repairing a barge, Feldman said.

Switching attorneys in the middle of contingent fee litigation can cause a dicey situation. It is never easy for the exiting attorney — after pouring years of blood, sweat, tears and money into the case — to set the file down and walk away without securing a fee, as they would before voluntarily referring a case to another attorney.

But walk away they must. An attorney can't dangle the client's case over the new counsel's head as a negotiation tool.

The flip side is that, if the lawyer does the right thing and ensures the timely transfer of representation, the law will protect them. At the resolution of a case, prior contingent fee attorneys are generally entitled to recoup their reasonable costs and the quantum meruit — the fair value — of the work they did.

Except, however, where the attorney has breached their fiduciary duties to the client, in which case most states will deny the award of fees. Indeed, the issue isn't just a concern for contingent fee attorneys: in some states, if a professional breaches their fiduciary duties, the court can order the disgorgement of any fees previously paid.

Some people need to learn lessons the hard way. For the rest of us, take note: there's millions of reasons not to play games with client's files.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Overlawyered passes along a misleading description of the "tort reform" provisions in the Senate health care bill from an anonymous Capitol Hill source:

The “tort reform” section of Senator Reid’s substitute amendment is not merely meaningless, but is actually a significant giveaway to the trial lawyers. It is essentially a 5-year, 50-million dollar grant program to encourage states to develop more plaintiff-friendly alternatives to the current medical liability system.

Section 10607 (p.344 of the Manager’s) establishes a 5-year grant program. The program is administered by the HHS Secretary (Sebelius), in consultation with a review panel. The review panel is structured to ensure that trial lawyers are amply represented, with seats specifically reserved for “patient advocates,” “attorneys with expertise in representing patients,” and “patient safety experts.”

Of course, the unnamed source fails to note that health care companies, defense lawyers and insurance companies are "amply represented," too. Read the bill yourself: alongside the patient advocates on those panels are "Health care providers and health care organizations,” “Attorneys with expertise in representing patients and health care providers,” and “Medical malpractice insurers.”

The source also says:

Nothing about this language requires that the “alternative to litigation” decreases litigation costs.

Nonsense. In order to receive a grant, states have to show how their plan “improves access to liability insurance." After they receive a grant, states' plans will be evaluated by factors such as “the disposition of disputes and claims, including the length of time and estimated costs to all parties” and “the medical liability environment.”

The Pop Tort has a more reasonable view:

Here is some of what we like about it: it proposes to give money to states to consider litigation alternatives, but only programs that are shown to improve patient safety, are voluntary and allow patients to opt, and do not limit a patient’s legal rights.  Clearly, if this passes (the House bill currently has something similar), we will have our battles at the state level as certain well-funded forces try to impose anti-patient measures like “Health Courts.”  But we’ll cross that bridge, as they say….

Whatever is done, we hope it works to reduce errors, but not just in hospitals, (here, here, here, for example) but also those of incompetent individual doctors, who by the way already have more liability protections for their negligence than any other profession in the country. 

Frankly, the biggest problem in the debate over medical malpractice liability in this country is the absence of concrete data. There's no agreement on how much medical malpractice occurs or how much damage it causes, nor any agreement on the effect of health care providers' insurance premiums on access to medical care. There's also only one major study on the reliability of the medical malpractice system, which tort reformers and trial lawyers both read to say whatever they want it to say.

Much like with the Comparative Effectiveness Research proposals, the biggest benefit of these "demonstration programs" will likely not be the discovery of a perfect recipe for the medical malpractice system, but rather the accumulation of data that will inform future debates.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

"Removal" is the process by which a defendant in a state court case "removes" the case to federal court. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) makes it sound so simple:

Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties. Any other such action shall be removable only if none of the parties in interest properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is brought.

There are two ideas behind removal, each expressed in their own sentence above. (If you're in the mood for some light reading of 18th century constitutional debates, here's primary source material on federal court jurisdiction.)

The first idea (in the first sentence) is that defendants have the right to have claims made against them under federal law heard by a federal court. For example, if plaintiff brings a claim under the RICO Act, a claim for violation of federal constitutional rights, or a claim under the Lanham Act, then the defendant has the right to remove the case to federal court so that a federal court will preside over the federal claims.

The second idea (in the second sentence) dates to the beginning of our Republic: federal courts, where the judges were appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate, were (and still are) perceived as being less likely to be biased in favor of local litigants than state courts, where the judges were either elected by the public or appointed by state officials. The "other such actions" described by 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) refer to cases brought under "diversity" jurisdiction, which allows plaintiffs in one state to sue defendants in another state in federal court, regardless of the claims brought. Thus, out-of-state defendants concerned about bias in a plaintiff's home state can remove cases if the case could have been filed in federal court in the first place under "diversity" jurisdiction.

Diversity jurisdiction, however, is disfavored by the federal courts. Personally, I think the most simple reason for the federal courts' dislike for diversity jurisdiction is because, much like how we prefer federal courts preside over cases bringing federal claims (as reflected by the first part of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)), we prefer state courts preside over cases bringing state claims. Much like how a defendant has an interest in having federal law claims against them heard in federal court, a plaintiff has an interest in having their state law claims heard in state court.

The United States Constitution provides for a limited federal government, including a limited federal judiciary. Thus, the requirements for removal have been strictly construed, since loosely construing them would violate basic principles of federalism:

Because lack of jurisdiction would make any decree in the case void and the continuation of the litigation in federal court futile, the removal statute should be strictly construed and all doubts resolved in favor of remand." Abels v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 770 F.2d 26, 29 (3d Cir. 1985) (citations omitted). If there is any doubt as to the propriety of removal, that case should not be removed to federal court. See Boyer v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 913 F.2d 108, 111 (3d Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1085, 111 S. Ct. 959, 112 L. Ed. 2d 1046 (1991).

Brown v. Francis, 75 F.3d 860, 864–865 (3d Cir. 1996). 

The latest "fad" among defense lawyers — more on the source of the word "fad" in a moment — is to hire companies to monitor state court dockets for suits against big corporations, particularly class actions alleging product liability. The moment a plaintiff files a lawsuit that includes any out-of-state defendants, the big corporations collude to have the out-of-state defendant file for removal, on the grounds that the in-state defendants haven't been "properly joined and served" yet.

It doesn't matter if the case involves 99 in-state defendants and 1 out-of-state defendant. It doesn't matter, if, quite obviously, the case could not have been filed in the first instance as a diversity case, since it involves in-state defendants, too. The big corporations found themselves a dubious loophole and decided to run with it.

And run with it they have: the defense gurus at Drug & Device Law have tallied a few dozen of these cases across the country. The defense argument is always the same: under the "plain meaning" of the statute, we can remove any case we want if the in-state defendants haven't been served yet.

It's a silly argument: the plain meaning rule does not permit a court to find a "plain" meaning “demonstrably at odds with the intentions of the drafters.” United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 242 (1989). There is, of course, no indication that Congress intended to let defendants avoid the strict, centuries-old federal policies against diversity jurisdiction and against removal by setting up a computer program that downloads the state court dockets every 10 minutes.

The more compelling "plain meaning" of 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b) is that Congress wanted to ensure the in-state defendants were "proper" defendants, and thus prevent plaintiffs from adding bogus in-state defendants to a lawsuit.

The defendants' game worked for a while, but the tide is turning.

Via Gregory P. Joseph's Complex Litigation Blog, we see the Northern District of Ohio rejecting the "properly joined and served" silliness:

Comerica's interpretation of §1441(b) suggests that the language "properly joined and served" creates an exception to the forum defendant rule. This argument is not novel; in fact, it has been the topic of much jurisprudential debate with varying success across the country. I, however, have no need to survey such case law because the Northern District of Ohio recently rejected Comerica's argument in a case of first impression. In Ethington v. Gen. Elec. Co., 575 F. Supp. 2d 855, 861 (N.D. Ohio), my colleague, District Judge Dan Aaron Polster, engaged in a thorough review of available case law.

And what does Ethington say?

The Court further notes that the growing trend among district courts wrestling with this latest litigation fad is to grant a timely motion to remand. While a review of the Frick, Thomson, and Ripley cases indeed shows that the judges in those cases abided by the plain meaning interpretation of the forum defendant rule, the GE Defendants' assertion that the New Jersey federal district courts 'ha[ve] rejected Plaintiffs' argument' is disingenuous at best; it fails to acknowledge that Frick (issued February 23, 2006), Thomson (May 22, 2007), and Ripley (Aug. 16, 2007) were each issued well in advance of the more recent case law from the District of New Jersey -- starting with Judge Chesler's opinion in DeAngelo-Shuayto -- that in fact rejected the approach taken in those three earlier cases. See, e.g., DeAngelo-Shuayto, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92557, at 5, 2007 WL 4365311, at *3 (finding that '§ 1441(b) must bar removal by a forum defendant, whether it has been served or not'); Fields, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92555, at *12-13, 2007 WL 4365312, at *5 (rejecting the plain language approach because it would create an 'untenable result' that would 'eviscerate the purpose of the forum defendant rule,' and holding that 'the 'properly joined and served' language of § 1441(b) does not encompass the situation in which the removing party is a forum defendant, and that in such situations removal to federal court is improper.'). See also, Brown, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 55490, at *8, 2008 WL 2833294, at *5 (adopting magistrate judge's report and recommendation with additional analysis, explicitly embracing the reasoning provided in the R&R, DeAngelo-Shuayto, and Fields, and stating 'this Court agrees with [the conclusion] that § 1441(b) must be read to preclude removal by an in-state defendant whether it has been served or not.'); Brown v. Organon USA Inc. (hereafter 'Brown R&R'), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50179, at *24-25, 2008 WL 2625355, at *8 (D.N.J. June 27, 2008) (M.J. Salas) (magistrate judge's R&R concluding that '[t]he Court agrees with DeAngelo-Shuayto' and finding 'that § 1441(b) bars a forum defendant from removing to federal court even if they have not been 'properly joined and served.''); Optec Displays, Inc. v. Am. Maint., Inc., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47562, at *3, 2008 WL 2510633, at *2 (D.N.J. June 16, 2008) (J. Debevoise) (remanding removed case with forum defendant, and explaining that 'even if [defendant] was not properly joined and served, it is still precluded, as a forum defendant, from removing the action to federal court.') (citing DeAngelo-Shuayto, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 92557, at *15, 2007 WL 4365311, at *3)).).

Notably, these more recent New Jersey federal district court cases are not alone in adopting Judge Chesler's reasoning and analysis on the proper way to interpret § 1441(b). Other federal district courts as of late have likewise followed the reasoning articulated in DeAngelo-Shuayto. See, e.g., Allen, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42491, at *13-15, 17-18, 2008 WL 2247067, at *4-6; Vivas v. Boeing Co., 486 F. Supp. 2d 726 (N.D.Ill. 2007) (J. Lefkow). (See also, ECF No. 30-2, Pls.' Rep. Mem., Ex. A to Aff. Dec. of Mitchell M. Breit, 1-6 (remand order in Evans v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Civ. A. No. 07-5046 (Jan. 10, 2008) (J. Brody); remand order in Hance v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Civ. A. No. 07-5047 (Jan. 10, 2008) (J. Brody); remand order in Malone v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, Civ. A. No. 07-5048, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97461 (Dec. 4, 2007) (J. Savage) (citing Oxendine v. Merck & Co., Inc., 236 F. Supp. 2d 517, 524-25 (D. Md. 2002)); remand order in Scott v. GlaxoSmithKline PLC, No. 07-CV-5049, Order of March 11, 2008, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84490, n.1 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 11, 2008) (J. Joyner)).) But see Flores v. Merck & Co. (In re Fosamax Prods. Liab. Litig.), 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 57473, at *37-38, 2008 WL 2940560, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. July 28, 2008) (a recent federal district court opinion invoking the plain language of § 1441(b) with little analysis to deny plaintiff's motion to remand).

After considering Sixth Circuit precedent on statutory interpretation and carefully reviewing case law on both sides of a federal district court split, the Court finds that applying the plain language of § 1441(b) would produce a result demonstrably at odds with Congressional intent underpinning the forum defendant rule, and specifically with the 'properly joined and served' language. Accordingly, the Court hereby joins the DeAngelo-Shuayto line of cases, and in so doing, the Court incorporates and adopts the well-reasoned, thorough analysis and holdings of Judge Chesler in DeAngelo-Shuayto as the basis for the instant ruling.

Ethington v. GE, 575 F. Supp. 2d 855, 864 (N.D. Ohio 2008). A "fad" that is "demonstrably at odds with Congressional intent." 

Told you so.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a comment on Overlawyered, Ted Frank points to his draft paper (with Marie Gryphon), Negotiating in the Shadow of 'Bad Faith' Refusal to Settle: A Game Theory Model of Medical Malpractice Pre-Trial Settlements and Insurance Limits:

Recent empirical studies of Texas data by Hyman et al, Zeiler et al, and Silver et al suggest that insurance limits affect settlements of medical malpractice cases. Writing separately, Silver argues that insurance limits act as a de facto cap on malpractice payouts, that plaintiffs are being underpaid as a result, and that therefore legislative caps on damages are unnecessary. But this hypothesis is inconsistent with the data, which indicates that forty-seven percent of cases in which plaintiffs obtain verdicts above policy limits are subsequently settled above policy limits. We propose to reconcile the data by accounting for the effects that third-party causes of action for alleged bad-faith refusal to settle — known in Texas as a Stowers action — have on pretrial settlement negotiations. If an insurer in Texas is presented with a settlement offer within insurance limits, refuses to settle, and the plaintiff wins an award greater than insurance limits, the plaintiff is entitled to sue the insurer for the full damages amount, plus punitive damages, for refusal to settle. In this paper, we explore the game theory of medical malpractice settlement negotiations in the shadow of Stowers.

Based on their (admittedly, and necessarily, simplistic) model of malpractice settlements, they run a Monte Carlo simulation.

It's not a bad idea, but they've missed one of the most important factors in settlement — the willingness and ability of the plaintiff to fight through years of risky litigation, trials, appeals and bankruptcy, where they must succeed 100% of the time to recover — and haven't shown why the existence of third-party bad faith lawsuits (i.e., those brought by the plaintiff against the defendant's insurer) contribute more towards settlement than the existence of first-party bad faith lawsuits (i.e., those brought by the defendant against their insurer).

Let's start with the biggest missing element from their model:

Silver, et al. suggests that there are polite reasons not to seek more than [the insurance policy limits]. But this hypothesis contradicts both what we know about the incentives of attorneys and the empirical data. Are we to believe that trial lawyers, out of the goodness of their heart, refuse to seek more than [insurance policy limits]? This seems improbable: the insured doctor is likely to have substantial assets, trusts provide limited protection, and the plaintiff attorney’s fiduciary duty to her client requires her to zealously pursue the doctor’s assets.

There are indeed "goodness of heart" considerations: it's psychologically easier to take an insurance company's reserves — which have been collected and maintained for the purpose of compensating injured plaintiffs — than to take an individual's personal assets.

But let's put that aside and focus on the money. Keep in mind that, in most circumstances, the insurer can't just pay their policy limits and wave goodbye to the defendant while the plaintiff goes after the defendant's assets. If the defendant doesn't want to pay any of their own money, then the insurance company will keep defending them to a full and final conclusion, without paying the plaintiff a dime in the meantime.

Most often, the settlement of an above-policy-limits claim at policy-limits is not due to the goodness of anyone's heart: it's the rational choice between either settling at insurance policy limits and walking away with the money now, or refusing the insurance money and then chasing the doctor's assets for years (with five-or-six figure additional costs) through trial, appeals, re-trials, bankruptcy, bankruptcy appeals, and bankruptcy discharge, which often pays unsecured creditors a fraction of their claim's value. And don't forget: the plaintiff has to be successful in each and every one of those proceedings.

If the insurer actually tenders their full policy limits, then my "fiduciary duty" to the client typically compels me to recommend the client take the policy limits now, rather than starve themselves for years and endure the substantial risks of running the entire civil legal gauntlet — where they must succeed 100% of the time to recover anything — for a theoretical shot at more.

To their credit, the authors admit at the end that they haven't included these factors:

This is still a relatively simple model: it assumes instantaneous and frictionless rulings, rather than an expensive process that may take several years with substantial fees for attorneys and medical expert witnesses. We assume that the trial court’s judgment is 100% accurate, and that there will be no appeal. We therefore do not consider the issue of post-trial settlement. In real life, the risk that a favorable judgment will be struck on appeal one reason why so many large judgments are settled so seemingly favorably, but it is impossible to estimate the size of this effect without qualitative data that the Hyman “haircut” study does not have.

Trials take years. We make no effort to compare the value of a settlement in the hand with a judgment several years in the future that is stayed by appeal. On the other hand, Texas has relatively generous post-judgment interest rates with a floor of 5%. Expanding the model to consider the time-value of money from early settlement would be useful in adjudging the merits and effects of the so-called “early offers” reform. As Zeiler notes, such time-value can also result in settlements below policy limits by virtue of aggressive negotiating by insurers.

Those two economic issues — the risk of losing on appeal (and/or retrial) and the time value of money — create a massive disincentive against attempting to pursue assets beyond the insurance policy limits. Post-judgment interest is generally irrelevant in the context of cases with damages/judgments larger than insurance proceeds: unless the plaintiff wants to go all the way through appeals, retrials, judgment execution, and bankruptcy, then, regardless of any post-judgment interest, the plaintiff's recovery is still effectively capped at the insurance policy limits.

That's the first problem: the failure to consider the effect of the willingness and ability of the plaintiff to fight through years of risky litigation on settlement.

Here's the second problem: the authors "add a Stowers factor S, which is equal to expected Stowers recovery given a victory at the underlying medical malpractice trial" but don't say how they calculate S. More importantly, though, they don't explain why a third-party bad faith recovery would be expected to be any larger than the first-party bad faith claim available to the doctor if she believes the insurer did not handle the case properly.

When an insurer worries about a potential bad faith claim, they're not just worried about the plaintiff suing them. Indeed, they're usually more worried about the defendant suing them.

Like Dr. Woo:

Robert C. Woo is a Seattle-area dentist. An online guide praises his "first-class service" and "painless procedures." It is likely that Tina Alberts, his former assistant, disagrees.

Alberts cared for pot-bellied pigs, a frequent topic for office banter. Dr. Woo enjoyed taunting her with accounts of his boar-hunting trips, and a picture of a skinned pig hanging from a hook. He predicted a similar fate for Walter, her beloved pet pig. Dr. Woo informs us that this was all part of a "friendly working environment."

When Alberts required surgery to replace two teeth, Dr. Woo saw an opportunity to cement this self-impression of bonhomie. Once she was completely sedated, he halted the agreed procedure, and began a new one. Replacing her teeth required the temporary installation of standard false teeth. Dr. Woo had secretly ordered a second set of temporary teeth, shaped like boar tusks. Removing her oxygen mask, he inserted the tusks and - we must assume this was part of the friendly working environment - took photographs of her with her eyes and mouth pried open. Returning at last to his professional duties, he removed the tusks and inserted the correct temporary teeth.

A month later, Dr. Woo's staff presented Alberts with the pictures at her birthday party. The fun-loving Woo described them as a "trophy" to take home. Home she went, never to return. Instead, she sued Dr. Woo for battery, invasion of privacy, medical malpractice, and a host of related claims.

Dr. Woo's insurance company refused to defend him in Alberts' lawsuit. Dr. Woo settled the case on his own for $250,000, then sued his insurance company.

And won:

Because his insurer should have defended him, Dr. Woo recovered the $250,000 he had paid Alberts. But he also claimed emotional distress due to his insurer's abandonment. Despite "the absence of any medical, psychiatric or expert testimony" attesting these injuries, a jury awarded him $750,000, which suggests the rather even quality of justice throughout the judicial system of Washington State. And naturally, Fireman's had to pay for Dr. Woo's legal costs.

The end result was exactly what Ted Frank and Marie Gryphon's paper is supposed to focus on: a situation in which an insurance company was forced to pay more than the policy limits for a malpractice claim. Yet, in Dr. Woo's case, the third-party Stowers action had nothing to do with it — it was a purely first-party claim brought by the doctor. 

I hope there's more study down this field; the world of litigation and defense & indemnity insurance is ripe for rigorous game theory analysis. But it needs to be as thorough and rigorous as the study of any other economic situation.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

In a stunning display of judicial activism, two conservative judges on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia re-wrote several recent Department of Defense regulations, a sixty-year-old Act of Congress, a basic principle of federalism upheld by dozens of Supreme Court opinions, and millenia of common law to dismiss the Saleh v. Titan Corporation and Ibrahim v. Titan Corporation lawsuits brought by more than a dozen Iraqis who "were beaten, electrocuted, raped, subjected to attacks by dogs, and otherwise abused by private contractors working as interpreters and interrogators at Abu Ghraib prison." Dissent op., p.1. The United States was not a defendant, nor were the military officers. The lawsuit was solely against the private contractors.

You already know the "allegations" -- you've probably already seen much of the evidence. There's no doubt what happened. It was "abhorrent" and "[doesn't] represent America” according to President Bush. Secretary Rumsfeld assured “[t]he people of the Middle East . . . that we will investigate fully, that we will find out the truth . . . and [that] justice will be served.” Dissent op., p. 2. Ilham Nassir Ibrahim isn't around for justice; he was beaten to death while in captivity. His widow is one of the plaintiffs.

The prohibition on unauthorized violence, even against prisoners, is universal to civilization. Under the Code of Hammurabi, if a prisoner like Ibrahim died "from blows or maltreatment," the responsible party's son was put to death. These days, torture for fun and profit without even the pretense of government authorization violates a panolopy of laws, including the Torture Victim Protection Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, numerous common law torts (assault and battery, wrongful death and survival, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligence), government contracting laws, and various international laws and agreements.

To cover their bases, the plaintiffs sued under all of them. Surely at least one such claim would survive under centuries-old Anglo-American legal maxim -- reaffirmed by the most important Supreme Court decision in our history -- that "where there is a legal right, there is also a legal remedy by suit or action at law whenever that right is invaded?"

The plaintiffs' claims were strengthened by the absence of any Executive or Congressional action to stop them, despite numerous claims by the private contractors that the federal government had a substantial interest in the outcome of the case. The Bush and Obama administrations both declined to intervene in the case. Congress for a half-century now has authorized dozens of military actions which included the use of private contractors without passing a single law granting them immunity from suit.

The only related Congressional Act -- the Federal Tort Claims Act -- expressly says it "does not include any contractor with the United States.”  In fact, the only recent relevant action by either the Executive or Legislative branches is a regulation from the Bush-era Department of Defense stating that, for performance-based service contracts, "contractors [are] accountable for the negligent or willful actions of their employees, officers, and subcontractors." Dissent op., p. 22. The DoD further explained that "“[i]nappropriate use of force could subject a contractor or its subcontractors or employees to prosecution or civil liability under the laws of the United States and the host nation.” Id at p. 21.

The Supreme Court, too, has made it quite clear that, when a government contractor breaches its agreement with the government and thereby causes a third party harm, that contractor is responsible for the harm. In Miree v. DeKalb County, 433 U. S. 25 (1977), the victims of an airplane crash sued a county airport because it "breached the FAA [flight permission] contracts by owning and maintaining a garbage dump adjacent to the airport, and that the cause of the crash was the ingestion of birds swarming from the dump into the jet engines of the aircraft." After reiterating (consistent with prior law) that "the issue of whether to displace state law on an issue such as this is primarily a decision for Congress" and noting "Congress has chosen not to do so in this case," the Supreme Court affirmed the victims' right to sue. Keep that "primarily a decision for Congress" concept, a basic principle of federalism recently upheld in Wyeth v. Levine, in mind -- we'll come back to it later.

Why, then were the Abu Ghraib cases dismissed? Judicial activism, plain and simple: having no act of Congress, no Executive decision (in fact, regulations to the contrary), and no applicable Supreme Court precedent to support their preferred policy outcome, two conservative judges invented an entirely new judicial doctrine.

The judges didn't say that, of course. They claimed to be applying existing law.

A bit of background is required to see why that's not true. Though Miree is the general rule for lawsuits brought by third parties injuried by government contractors who breach their contracts, an exception for government manufacturers who perform their contracts properly was created by Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), where a United States Marine helicopter copilot was killed when his CH-53D helicopter crashed off the coast of Virginia Beach and he drowned. His family brought a lawsuit against the manufacturer of the CH-53D, alleging that the helicopter was defective because escape hatch opened out instead of inward, and thus was impossible to open underwater.

The Supreme Court held the family could not recover against the manufacturer because that design had been specifically required by the government, and thus the federal procurement specification "preempted" any claims of negligence, rendering the contractor immune from suit for following those specifications. Make no mistake: as the Supreme Court later described Boyle, preemption and immunity for government contractors applies only in the "special circumstance" where the “government has directed a contractor to do the very thing that is the subject of the claim.”  Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 74 n.6 (2001)(applying the old Miree rule)

It's a sensible rule, even though one not enacted by Congress (as Miree and long-standing law said it should be). But it's also a very limited rule: as Justice Scalia wrote for the Supreme Court, it applies where "the asserted basis of the contractor's liability (specifically, the duty to equip helicopters with the sort of escape-hatch mechanism petitioner claims was necessary) is precisely contrary to the duty imposed by the Government contract (the duty to manufacture and deliver helicopters with the sort of escape-hatch mechanism shown by the specifications)."

Note those words: "precisely contrary." Scalia even gave an example of where it would not apply, such as where a government merely purchased air-conditioning units without any requirement contrary to a specific safety feature. As Scalia wrote, "no one suggests that state law would generally be preempted" if someone injured by the lack of that safety feature filed a lawsuit. Of course, absolutely no one suggested that a government contractor who breached their contract would be immune. As Scalia wrote, "conflict there must be" between the federal contract requirements and the lawsuit.

Compare "precisely contrary" and "conflict there must be" to Abu Ghraib, where the contractors intentionally breached their contracts through criminal conduct. Such is even less a case for preemption and immunity than Miree, where the breach was negligent, and which was reaffirmed by Boyle. Yet, Boyle is what the conservative judges claimed they were applying:

Slip op., p 13.

Did you catch all of that? The conservative judges took a twenty-year-old Supreme Court case admittedly involving the "special circumstance" where a plaintiff sued alleging a government manufacturer should have done the exact opposite of what the government told them to do, then, by way of a federal statute that expressly says it does not apply to contractors (the FTCA), the conservative judges applied that "special circumstances" to immunitize every private contractor in any "battle-field" -- which Abu Ghraib certainly wasn't -- who tortures and kills people without even the pretense of governmental authority.

In order to do that, the conservative judges also ran roughshod over the millenia-old prohibition on abusing prisoners, the centuries-old maxim that every right has a remedy, decades of precedent holding that Congress -- not the Courts -- is responsible for creating immunities, and recent crystal-clear Department of Defense regulations affirming that private contractors remain responsible for their wrongful conduct.

Judicial activism at its finest. Read the opinion yourself, if you dare. I recommend you start with the fine dissent by Judge Garland.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ronald Miller has an excellent post about the timing of interrogatories in personal injury lawsuits.

One of the most effective weapons available to plaintiff's lawyers is the element of surprise. Although defendants typically begin lawsuits with far more information about the facts (and thus a better ability to marshal specific facts in their favor), they do not know what the plaintiff's lawyer knows or believes, and they do not know how the plaintiff's lawyer intends to prove his or her case.

Moreover, in some cases, the defendant's lawyer might not even take the time to learn all the relevant facts. Thus, as Miller notes,

[S]ome [defense] lawyers are going to learn the case when they get the file and get their client ready, regardless of the stage of the case. Others are going to not know the file at all and introduce themselves to the client and the case 10 minutes before the depositions. The theory behind waiting to serve interrogatories is that if you get the latter type of defense attorney, the defendant will take positions that don’t comport with the facts, logic or good strategy because they have not looked at the nuances of the case. Arguably, this logic would even hold up against a top notch lawyer because every lawyer, even well prepared lawyers, sees a case with a clearer lens on the courthouse steps than they do when preparing for a deposition.

No doubt. On the other hand,

The advantage in first obtaining answers to interrogatories is that the answers should help the attorney determine who should be deposed, what questions should be asked of those deponents and what documents should be obtained in the case.

Of course, another highly effective weapon is the truth. Much as how cynics say that you should tell the truth because it is easier to remember, a lawyer will always be able to handle surprise at trial if his or her theory of the case is consistent with the truth. Conversely, a lawyer who presents a theory that is inconsistent with the truth (even if presented in good faith, such as when the lawyer was simply unaware of a particular fact) is exposed to the risk that a "surprise" fact will contradict their theory and take the whole case down with it.

For me, then, when determining how much discovery I want to do prior to a deposition, I consider how much I know about the witness's story and about the truth, and how much more I need to know about the witness's story and the truth. Thus, while I rarely send out comprehensive interrogatories prior to a deposition, I will usually send out enough to know the witness's position with regard to the major issues in the case. Odds are, the defense lawyer will have figured out those issues (and prepared the witness) even if they only picked up the file a few days before the deposition, so it's pointless to blind myself to those facts.

Finally, in my personal experience trickery of any form, even ethical trickery that is entirely within the bounds of professionalism, is a waste of time, and you have more to lose by attempting it than by simply investigating the case thoroughly and proving it in the most clear, concise and compelling manner possible.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

[UPDATE: The Volokh Conspiracy, Concurring Opinions and TechDirt picked up on the case and this post as well. Volokh has substantial discussion in the comments, including links to law review articles on the issues of vacated and unpublished opinions, and a comment by the author of The Legal Intelligencer article, Shannon Duffy, noting that you can find the opinions themselves on the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's own website. I have also edited a line (the one quoted by Co-Op) for clarity.]

The Legal Intelligencer reports:

Ordinarily, the decision to settle a case while an appeal is pending means giving up the opportunity to set a legal precedent as well as forgoing the chance to win a reversal of any unfavorable published decisions handed down by the lower court.

But a team of defense lawyers fighting to overturn a $24 million verdict have figured out a way to have their settlement cake and eat their jurisprudence, too.

The confidential settlement in Klein v. Amtrak -- a case in which two trespassing teenagers climbed atop a parked train car and suffered serious burns when they got too close to a 12,000-volt catenary wire -- included an unusual provision that called for the trial judge to vacate all of his published opinions and have them removed from Lexis and Westlaw.

And it worked.

A few months after holding an hourlong oral argument, the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in late July to remand the case to the trial judge, U.S. District Judge Lawrence F. Stengel, who, in turn, agreed to vacate eight of his published opinions and to "direct" Lexis and Westlaw to remove them from their databases.

...

Exactly how the lawyers went about persuading Stengel to take such an unusual step is impossible to say because all of the court papers are under seal and none of the lawyers will talk about it.

The verdict drew a lot of attention in the Philadelphia legal community, not least because of the size and the names of the defendants, most of whom often avoid premises liability on a variety of theories. It's no surprise the defendants want to re-write history to prevent future plaintiffs from finding or referring to the case.

As a citizen, I am a strong believer in open government and governmental accountability, including for the judiciary. As a lawyer, I do not believe a court can ever truly "unpublish" a decision, and I believe that law is made every time a court decides any issue.

As such, I am linking to the free and publicly-available RECAP copies of the "vacated" opinions:

(a) the District Court's March 31, 2008 Memorandum Order denying Defendants' post-trial motions [reported at 2008 WL 879968 and 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25990] (District Court Docket No. 208).

(b) the District Court's October 11, 2006 Memorandum Order denying Defendants' in limine motion regarding evidence of prior electrical contacts [reported at 2006 WL 2927280 and 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 73940] (District Court Docket No. 130).

(c) the District Court's October 12, 2006. Memorandum Order denying Defendants' in limine motion regarding evidence of prior electrical contacts [reported at 2006 WL 3000955 and 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 75942] (District Court Docket No. 145).

(d) the District Court's March 31, 2006 Memorandum Order denying Defendants' summary judgment motion [reported at 2006. WL 859442 and 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15331] (District Court Docket No. 58).

(e) the District Court's Memorandum Order, entered August 17, 2006, denying Amtrak's motion to certify pursuant to 28 USC 1292(b) [reported at 2006 WL 2385516 and 2006 U.s. Dist. LEXIS 57613] (District Court Docket No. 72).

(f) the District Court's October 2, 2006 Memorandum Order granting Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration of the District Court's order of July 13,2006 with respect to Norfolk Southern's liability as a non-possessor of land [reported at 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80992; not reported in Westlaw] . (District Court Docket No. 111).

(g) the District Court's October 2,2006 Order denying Defendants' in limine motion regarding Amtrak's internal memorandum dated November 17, 1983 and Amtrak's June 20, 1984 letter [This Order is not reported in LexisNexis or Westlaw] (District Court Docket No. 119).

(h) the District Court's October 10, 2006 Memorandum Order denying Defendants' in limine motion regarding evidence of prior electrical contacts for the purpose of proving ·punitive damages [This Order is not reported in LexisNexis or Westlaw] (District Court Docket No. 129).

Law, once made, cannot be unmade.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Professor Richard Epstein of the University of Chicago published an opinion piece in yesterday's Wall Street Journal on medical malpractice.

"Embarrassingly ignorant" would be a charitable description. Eric Turkewitz calls it "flat out false."

How bad was it? Turkewitz caught two outright falsehoods:

American courts commonly think it proper for juries to infer medical negligence from the mere occurrence of a serious injury.

and

American plaintiffs are sometimes spared the heavy burden of identifying particular acts of negligence, or of showing the precise causal connection between a negligent act and an actual injury.

Neither of these are true, as described in Turkewitz's article.

But it doesn't even end there. Here's another line:

American judges frequently let juries decide whether honest mistakes are negligent.

It is hard to put into words how embarrassing, shocking and insulting it is to see a law professor who has written textbooks on torts question how we (or who we let) "decide whether honest mistakes are negligent."

An "honest mistake" is negligent. It's what it means to have been negligent: you made a mistake. You neglected your duty. You failed to exercise the care that a reasonable, prudent person would exercise under the same circumstances. If a physician had intended the harm, it wouldn't be medical malpractice, it would be battery, an intentional tort.

And that is how it should be: a physician should be responsible for damages they caused the patient by neglecting their duty. If the patient neglected to drive safely, ran a red light, and injured the physician, the patient would be responsible for the damages they caused the physician. It's why we have insurance: to pay for the damages we mistakenly cause others.

Putting aside Professor Epstein's "honestly mistaken" description of medical malpractice law, let's consider his solution to the "disturbing" medical malpractice system (which he vaguely and ridiculously concludes causes a full 10% of US health costs by way of defensive medicine):

What is needed is the replacement of juries with specialized commissions like those in France, which help reduce litigation expenses and promote uniformity in case outcomes across regions.

Naturally, Epstein doesn't go into any detail about his proposal, so there's nothing even to critique.

On the subject, however I recently noted that Philip K. Howard's health courts proposal (in the New York Times) was "unlikely to make results any more 'reliable' than now, unless you presume that judges are systematically biased in favor of one side or the other" and that "Howard's process for choosing a 'neutral' expert and the materials they opine on will probably make medical malpractice litigation more contentious, expensive, and uncertain."

Epstein's ephemeral proposal would likely suffer the same problems if he actually spelled out the details. But he has no need to worry about that, he can just 'negligently' draft a new column filled with errors about some other field of law.

Finally, he concludes:

The best reform would be to allow physicians, hospitals and patients to contract out of the liability mess by letting the parties reject state-imposed malpractice rules. They could, for example, choose to arbitrate, to waive jury trials, or to limit damage recovery. Stiff competition and the need to maintain reputation should keep medical providers in line in such a system.

That is to say, Epstein wants to transplant to medicine the same fine extrajudicial system we use for credit cards, used car buying, and check-cashing.

Thanks, but no thanks.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

After four days of trial, and a few hours of deliberations, the AP reports:

A federal jury ruled Thursday that Jammie Thomas-Rasset willfully violated the copyrights on 24 songs, and awarded recording companies $1.92 million, or $80,000 per song.

Thomas-Rasset's second trial actually turned out worse for her. When a different federal jury heard her case in 2007, it hit Thomas-Rasset with a $222,000 judgment.

Under our absurd (and possibly unconstitutional) copyright laws, the award per violation can range from $750 to $150,000, and the jury here roughly split the difference at $80,000 per song, about the same amount as a Manhatten jury will give you for losing the end of your pinky. The jury must have felt these particular duplicate copies of the songs were very dear to the poor record companies.

Why would twelve ordinary citizens do that?

A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.

Camara suspects that the jury thought Thomas-Rasset was a liar and were "angry about it," thus leading to the $80,000 per-song damages.

And there you go. Camara has it right; pity he couldn't get his client to stop lying at trial.

For comparison, not too long ago a jury awarded just $1 million in pain and suffering to this man:

After 63 days in the hospital (57 of them in a coma), 11 surgeries and 65 more days in a rehabilitation hospital, Robert Doviak was left totally and permanently blind, with a sense of touch that was seriously compromised, partial loss of hearing and no sense of smell or taste. Additionally, he had substantial orthopedic injuries including fractures of his left femur, several cervical vertebrae, both zygomatic arches and other bones in and about his face and eyes, his left hand and his right wrist.

The difference?

[D]uring summation, Doviak's attorney asked the jury to award Doviak $60,000,000 for pain and suffering, an amount Doviak's new attorneys say is preposterous and evidence of awful advocacy and which defense counsel says revealed the greed that served as the foundation of plaintiff's case[.]

Credibility matters. Who you are, what you do, and what you say matters. Don't treat the jury like they're stupid; don't try to get anything by them, and don't ask them to do or to believe something ridiculous. It will never work. If your case has a problem, concede it, deal with it, and move on.

And above all, never lie to the jury.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Via Overlawyered, the NYTimes says:

In closed-door talks, Mr. Obama has been making the case that reducing malpractice lawsuits — a goal of many doctors and Republicans — can help drive down health care costs, and should be considered as part of any health care overhaul, according to lawmakers of both parties, as well as A.M.A. officials.

It is a position that could hurt Mr. Obama with the left wing of his party and with trial lawyers who are major donors to Democratic campaigns. But one Democrat close to the president said Mr. Obama, who wants health legislation to have broad support, views addressing medical liability issues as a “credibility builder” — in effect, a bargaining chip that might keep doctors and, more important, Republicans, at the negotiating table.

The story (and apparently Obama) is exceedingly light on details, but suggests:

Mr. Obama has not endorsed capping malpractice jury awards, as did his predecessor, President George W. Bush. But as a senator, he advanced legislation aimed at reducing malpractice suits. And Dr. J. James Rohack, the incoming president of the medical association, said Mr. Obama told him at a meeting last month that he was open to offering some liability protection to doctors who follow standard guidelines for medical practice.

...

And any effort to restrict patients’ legal rights to sue will face tough opposition from the American Association for Justice, which represents trial lawyers and has met with Nancy-Ann DeParle, Mr. Obama’s point person for health reform, to express its concerns. Linda Lipsen, the association’s chief lobbyist, said practice guidelines were established by unregulated medical societies and “should not be conclusive” in a court of law.

What's that mean? I don't really know -- I suppose they want to make guidelines from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American College of Emergency Physicians have the force of law, or they want to incorporate them as a presumption of meeting the standard of care.

Without more detail, it's hard to comment on the effects of it. Yet, incorporating these guidelines could make the medical malpractice process even more litigious, since lawyers will argue over whether the guidelines applied and whether the doctor followed them.

With regard to the idea of incorporating them, as I wrote before discussing Comparative Effectiveness Research ("CER"), also pushed by Obama:

Put simply, CER will cut both ways. A doctor who does not utilize a CER-approved treatment will have a lot of explaining to do down the road if that treatment would have helped. Conversely, a plaintiff alleging a doctor should have used a CER-disapproved treatment will have a hard time convincing a jury that the doctor should have overridden the billion-dollar research.

From a liability / malpractice standpoint, doctors who abide by the standard of care should welcome the CER with open arms, as it will give them a powerful tool to wield when a plaintiff's lawyer later asks "why didn't you do _____?" They can quite honestly answer "because the CER says it's not effective."

That may apply the same to "College" guidelines. One problem, as mentioned above, is that the guidelines aren't necessarily set based on empirical data, and they're not reviewed by outside sources prior to publication. 

We'll have to wait and see for more information.

[UPDATE: Obama's speech to the American Medical Association included:

I recognize that it will be hard to make some of these changes if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits. Some doctors may feel the need to order more tests and treatments to avoid being legally vulnerable. That's a real issue. And while I'm not advocating caps on malpractice awards -- which I believe can be unfair to people who've been wrongfully harmed -- I do think we need to explore a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first, let doctors focus on practicing medicine, and encourage broader use of evidence-based guidelines. That's how we can scale back the excessive defensive medicine reinforcing our current system of more treatment rather than better care.

So he might be talking about CER after all. If so, I think that's a good thing for everyone. One problem for both physicians and plaintiffs is that, in many areas, the "standard of care" is frustratingly unclear. If CER can be used to create those standards, all the better.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The WSJ Law Blog points us to a Gawker reference to an AP article that says:

Richelle Olson sued [Sacha Baron Cohen] and NBC Universal on May 22, claiming an incident at a charity bingo tournament that was filmed for the upcoming "Bruno" left her disabled.

Olson claims she was severely injured after struggling with Cohen and his film crew at the event, held in Palmdale, Calif., two years ago. The lawsuit states she now needs a wheelchair or cane to move around.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages of more than $25,000.

Gawker wonders aloud:

We would hope that if this lady genuinely suffered brain bleeding that left her in a wheelchair that she's a asking for much more than $25,000 in damages, but why she waited two years to file the suit is anyone's guess—-Some would say probably because it's all a bunch of BS.

Don't blame Gawker, they don't claim to be legal experts.

The suit was filed in Lancaster, California, which is in Los Angeles County.

As you can see from this fee schedule (PDF), the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, has a "limited civil case" program for those cases valued at less than $25,000. It likely has different rules and different judges, much like Philadelphia's mandatory arbitration for cases below $50,000 and Pennsylvania's municipal court for cases below $8,500 (or $10,000 in Philadelphia).

Most states have in place a "small claims court" of some sort for claims below a certain value, to conserve judicial resources while still giving parties access to substantial justice.

Thus, a suit that "seeks unspecified damages of more than $25,000" could be worth millions or billions of dollars. That allegation is nothing more than a legal term inserted in the complaint by the plaintiff's lawyer to let the clerk know that the case should be assigned to the full-fledged civil trial court and not the small claims court.

As for the two years, I doubt that has anything to do with the plaintiff herself. It takes time to prepare a case, and it's not surprising to see a case filed right as the statute of limitations is about to expire. Perhaps the lawyers have been discussing settlement. Perhaps the plaintiff was hoping to avoid suing and was seeing if they would get better, but, due to the statute of limitations, has to sue now or never.

[UPDATE: Daniel A. Reisman, a Los Angeles business lawyer, fills in the details, noting how (like in Pennsylvania), plaintiffs in personal injury suits are prohibited from stating specific damages in their complaint.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

I've written before about Contingent Fee Business Lawyers As Venture Capitalists and Lawyers Who "Don't Take Possible Losers," so I was thrilled to read the NYTimes yesterday:

Richard W. Fields says he has come up with a win-win financial strategy for the downturn. He is investing in lawsuits.

Not in trip-and-fall cases, mind you, but in disputes that are far larger, more costly and potentially more lucrative, often pitting major corporations against each other.

Mr. Fields is chief executive of Juridica Capital Management. which runs a fund that invests in one side of a lawsuit in exchange for a share of any winnings.

Larry Ribstein has the most thorough commentary on it:

Litigation financing can be viewed as simply another way for the capital markets to help firms exploit productive assets. Of course there are special problems relating to outsiders stirring up claims by simply funding actions by others (maintenance), particularly where the investor gets some of the proceeds (champerty) or the claims are groundless (barratry).  Also, confidentiality and privilege rules may forbid disclosure of litigation information to outside funders, making these particularly difficult investments. The basic problem, as discussed in my earlier blog post, is that "it turns litigation into a business rather than the search for corrective justice."

With respect to the excessive litigation point, it's worth noting that the hedge funds aren't financing the most abusive types of strike suits. These aren’t consumer class actions, but b2b litigation. ...

I asked Larry in comments for some support for that latter point, to no avail, and I stick by my point that "There's no shortage of patent, copyright, antitrust and securities regulation defense attorneys willing to opine that those 'b2b' areas are as ripe with abuse as any other legal field."

In any event, we already have an industry in which billions (potentially trillions) of dollars of investments are pooled to fund litigation directed towards a particular result. We call it "insurance."

There is a good reason that plaintiff's trial lawyers up against insurance companies (not just in personal injury cases like wrongful death or medical malpractice, but also a variety of "b2b" claims like director & officer liability) accept it as an article of faith that they will not get any reasonable settlement offers until the eve of trial. The economic relationship between insurance companies, defense lawyers, and policyholders creates a situation in which no one mentally accepts the legitimacy of the claim -- much less a reasonable value of it -- until they are staring down the barrel of a verdict.

Thanks to defense liability insurance, even the most obvious of cases will be met with denial and furious litigating of any and all liability, including a denial of basic common sense principles such as a truck driver being the "agent" of the trucking company or a hospital having a duty to its patients.

Why?

To roll the dice: spending a couple thousand dollars litigating the issue could save them the cost of the entire judgment, or at least cause the plaintiff and their lawyer to worry and accept a smaller settlement.

So count me as deeply unimpressed by fears that these hedge funds will spur frivolous plaintiff's litigation: we've already got plenty of frivolous defense litigation and no one raises a peep.

Moreover, as I've mentioned time and again, investing in lawsuits is a risky business. The potential downside is 100%. Look at Juridica's cautious business model:

The investing companies say that because they do not take control of the lawsuit from the company and lawyers waging it, their most important task is identifying cases likely to produce a substantial return. That means, for example, rejecting claims that raise novel legal questions or that will probably end up before a jury, Mr. Fields said.

“Juries are a coin toss,” and that is too much uncertainty, he said. The company also avoids cases where the outcomes are difficult to predict because they could draw political attention or could be reversed on appeal, and cases in which the other side lacks deep pockets.

Let me reiterate that: these litigation investment hedge funds only take non-jury cases with simple issues and low odds of appeal.

That's a small fraction of the litigation and trial market, one with no "frivolous" cases at all. The funds are investing solely in the cases they believe are very likely to win.

The "danger" of frivolous cases is thus non-existent: the real "danger" is when plaintiffs with meritorous cases can't afford to pursue them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Among the many creative “legal” ideas floating around on the internet is:

If you set up an LLC for yourself and conduct all your business through it, the LLC will be liable in a lawsuit but you won't.

Last week, I was asked if this "asset protection strategy" worked.

No, it doesn't.

Conducting your personal business through an LLC provides no protection against a tort verdict, the type of liability that most people are worried about. The use of corporate forms -- like LLCs, S-Corporations, or Incorporation -- has many important purposes, but avoiding personal tort liability for your own conduct is not one of them.

To see why, let's start with some background.

What's a "tort?"

"Tort" is the Norman word for "wrong." There are three main types of legal wrongs: criminal wrongs, contractual wrongs, and tort wrongs.

A "criminal" wrong is an offense against the state: we as a society made it illegal to smoke pot, you did it anyway, here's your punishment. A "contractual" wrong is a failure to do something you agreed to do: I gave you $20 to mow my lawn, you didn't do it, I want my money back.

Everything else is a "tort" wrong. The most common tort is "negligence," which includes most lawsuits, like car accidents, medical malpractice, or slip and fall. In negligence, you had a general duty to do something in a reasonable way (like drive your car safely) and you messed up, so you have to pay for the harm you caused. Another type of "tort" is an intentional tort, like defamation or tortious interference with business relations: you purposefully hurt me, so you should pay for the damage.

When most people say they're worried about "getting sued," they're usually talking about being responsible a large tort verdict arising from a catastrophic injury or wrongful death.

What's an LLC?

A limited liability company is a type of business association recognized by state and federal governments as a legal entity independent of its owners and employees. On behalf of the owners, the company can, for example, own property and enter into contracts.

For our purposes here, we do not need to go into the differences between a limited liability company, an S-corporation, full incorporation, or a limited partnership. (I exclude general partnership and sole proprietorship because neither claims to limit liability at all.) All of them serve the same basic purpose, which is to protect investors from incurring any liability greater than the amount they invested into the company. The Economist described the purpose of limited liability a couple years ago:

Before limited liability, shareholders risked going bust, even into a debtors’ prison maybe, if their company did. Few would buy shares in a firm unless they knew its managers well and could monitor their activities, especially their borrowing, closely. Now, quite passive investors could afford to risk capital—but only what they chose—with entrepreneurs. This unlocked vast sums previously put in safe investments; it also freed new companies from the burden of fixed-interest debt. The way was open to finance the mounting capital needs of the new railways and factories that were to transform the world.

How does tort liability work in the context of an LLC?

Most everyone knows, although not by name, "vicarious liability" and "the doctrine of respondeat superior." If, in the course and scope of your employment, you cause someone else harm, then your employer is liable for your conduct. 

Here's what you probably don't know:

An agent is subject to liability to a third party harmed by the agent's tortious conduct. Unless an applicable statute provides otherwise, an actor remains subject to liability although the actor acts as an agent or an employee, with actual or apparent authority, or within the scope of employment.

Restatement of the Law, Third, Agency § 7.01 (emphasis added).

(An aside about The Restatement: The Restatement is an intense effort of lawyers, professors and judges organized by the American Law Institute to reduce to writing the legal community's consensus regarding general principles of law applied across the country. "Agency" is the subject of this particular Restatement, and "Third" means it's the third version, which was published in 2006. For reference of how intense these efforts are, the Second version was published in 1958. In case you're wondering, the Second version also said “[a]n agent who does an act otherwise a tort is not relieved from liability by the fact that he acted at the command of the principal or on account of the principal …")

An "agent" is a broader definition of "employee:" it's anyone acting on behalf of the company.

Let me reiterate what that all means: the general legal rule across the country is that individuals acting on behalf of a company are personally liable for their tortious conduct, even if they did so on behalf of the company.

Don't believe this "Restatement?" Want some case law? Here's a case from the Virgin Islands less than a month ago, noting in passing the cases it found with minimal research:

Terr. of the U.S.V.I. v. Goldman, Sachs & Co., 937 A.2d 760, 794 n.153 (Del. Ch. 2007) ('Officers and directors may be held individually liable for personal participation in tortious acts even though performed solely for the benefit of the corporation[.]') (quotation omitted); Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, 70 P.3d 35, 41 (Utah 2003); Miller v. Keyser, 90 S.W.3d 712, 717 (Tex. 2002); Saltiel v. GSI Consultants, Inc., 170 N.J. 297, 788 A.2d 268, 273 (N.J. 2002); Haupt v. Miller, 514 N.W.2d 905, 909 (Iowa 1994); Camacho v. 1440 Rhode Island Ave. Corp., 620 A.2d 242, 246-47 (D.C. 1993); Weir v. McGill, 203 Ga. App. 431, 417 S.E.2d 57, 59 (Ga. 1992); Hecker v. Ravenna Bank, 237 Neb. 810, 468 N.W.2d 88, 95 (Neb. 1991); Ingram v. Machel & Jr. Auto Repair, Inc., 148 A.D.2d 324, 325, 538 N.Y.S.2d 539 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989); Mississippi Printing Co. v. Maris, West & Baker, Inc., 492 So. 2d 977, 978 (Miss. 1986); Wyatt v. Union Mortg. Co., 24 Cal. 3d 773, 157 Cal. Rptr. 392, 598 P.2d 45, 52 (Cal. 1979); Jabczenski v. Southern Pac. Memorial Hosp., 119 Ariz. 15, 579 P.2d 53, 57 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1978); Taylor v. Alston, 79 N.M. 643, 447 P.2d 523, 525 (N.M. Ct. App. 1968); New Eng. Box Co. v. Gilbert, 100 N.H. 257, 123 A.2d 833, 835 (N.H. 1956)."

Addie v. Kjaer, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36110, at *21–12 (D.V.I. Apr. 28, 2009)(noting, "The Court has come across no jurisdiction that applies a contrary rule.").

Insurance and employee indemnification are so common today that this distinction is not often appreciated, but it's still the law. If Warren Buffet defrauded Mom and Pop’s Ice Cream Stand wholly for the benefit of Berkshire Hathaway, he would personally be on the hook for the damage just the same as Berkshire.

Let's go back to your personal LLC. Assume you hit a pedestrian with a car, defame someone in a blog post, or cause a building fire. It doesn't matter if you were "employed" by your LLC when you did it -- you will still be personally liable, as will the LLC that "employed" you.

Thus, in order to "protect your assets," you need to put enough money into the LLC that it can completely pay any tort judgment against you, or else the injured person can go for your assets long after it has bankrupted the LLC. That just defeats the nominal purpose of the LLC (to avoid liability), since you'll have to pay the same amount anyway, just through the LLC.

Again, there are plenty of reasons for setting up an LLC, such as protecting investors, limiting contractual liability, limiting liability arising from employee's conduct, and a host of business and tax uses, but avoiding personal liability for your own conduct isn't one of them.

There's an easier and more effective way. Buy good personal liability insurance and buy an umbrella liability insurance policy. If you're running a business, buy a good business insurance policy (including liability) and an umbrella policy for it, too. If your business is unusual, or you're worried about a particular risk, look for risk-specific insurance, like media policies which cover defamation. Don't skimp -- get at least $1 million in coverage, or more depending on your own risks.

Then you'll be covered for most tort verdicts (keep in mind some states prohibit insuring intentional conduct, and insurance policies can carve out whatever exceptions / exemptions they want).

No trickery needed, just some money and foresight.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Following up on yesterday’s discussion of an emergency physician’s critique of medical malpractice reform in Pennsylvania, in which the physician claimed, without any evidence, that the number of defendants in malpractice cases has risen recently, negating many of the benefits of malpractice reform.

Put simply, he missed the boat. The number of defendants does not have much to do with the premiums by healthcare providers. It is just not an issue.

Three of the primary reforms of the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act of March 20, 2002, however, did have a substantial impact on medical malpractice in Pennsylvania.

Before we get to those though, let me reference another post of mine about contingent fee lawyers as venture capitalists. Medical malpractice plaintiffs are almost exclusively represented on a contingent fee basis, with the plaintiff’s law firm advancing all costs in the matter and not collecting any fee unless the injured patient recovers through a settlement or verdict. If the injured patient does recover, the firm will have its costs reimbursed from that recovery and will take a portion of the recovery as its attorneys fees.

All of which is to say that plaintiffs' attorneys already have a big financial incentive to bring only meritorious cases, since they don’t get paid and don’t get their expenses reimbursed if they lose.

Three of the major changes by the MCARE Act were:

1. tightening of requirements for qualifying expert physician witnesses,
2. requiring plaintiffs file a “certificate of merit” signed by a qualified physician prior to filing suit, and
3. requiring plaintiffs bring suit in the venue in which the malpractice occurred.

The expert witness qualifications and certificate of merit both have the same effect on medical malpractice cases: they make it a lot more expensive to file, litigate and try cases.

Expert fees are by far the largest cost in medical malpractice cases. An initial review by a non-specialist physician for purposes of obtaining a certificate of merit will cost a thousand dollars at least, often more, while a full review and expert report (not including trial testimony) will cost at least $10,000, usually much more. In complicated cases involving specialist physicians or multiple experts, expert fees alone will easily exceed $50,000 and can, in a single malpractice case, exceed $200,000.

The certificate of merit thus operates as a tax: if you want to file a medical malpractice suit, you will have to spend several thousand dollars before you can even start the process. The expert qualifications, in turn, removes from the potential pool a number of less qualified – and thus less expensive – experts.

For a well capitalized firm like The Beasley Firm with multiple established medical malpractice attorneys and a focus on trial, the effect of these two provisions is minor. Even without MCARE, all of our cases are reviewed extensively prior to agreeing to representation and filing suit, including through the use of outside expert physicians as consultants. Moreover, as a matter of pure trial advocacy, we seek out highly qualified experts, more than qualified under MCARE’s guidelines, because they are more effective in litigation and more credible at trial.

But that’s not the case for everyone, and the effect of the two expert provisions was to consolidate the medical malpractice market, with most solo and generalized personal injury attorneys leaving it altogether and referring their cases to more established and specialized attorneys and law firms.

The two expert provisions are probably the biggest reason for the drop in number of filings: now the bulk of cases are referred to and reviewed by firms better equipped to assess the viability of the claims, resulting in more rejections of weaker cases pre-suit.

Although I believe the MCARE expert requirements can be a bit tight in very specialized areas where the number of "qualified" experts across the country is in the double digits, it’s hard for me to complain about a procedural change that shuttles business to my firm while not substantially increasing costs (for the same reasons, you should probably take what I say with a grain of salt, as I am not unbiased here).

With regard to the venue restriction, normally a plaintiff (in any case) files in the county in which the “transaction or occurrence” happened. There are, however, numerous exceptions to this rule, leading to a concern about plaintiffs “gaming” the system by, for example, adding physicians located in plaintiff-friendly counties (like Philadelphia and Allegheny counties) for purposes of establishing venue then later dismissing them.

With the institution of the certificate of merit rules, the possibility of “gaming” was significantly, but not entirely, reduced, as it became much harder to simply add a defendant-physician to a lawsuit.

Although the venue provision likely only had a moderate effect on the number of filings, it likely had a substantial effect on the size of payouts made for settlements or verdicts. The reason for that is simple: by and large, suburban and rural juries award less to plaintiffs than urban juries. Moreover, regardless of the extent of such a phenomena, defense and plaintiffs' lawyers believe it to be the case, and so respectively offer and accept lower settlements.

If you are of the “tort reform” mindset, that is a good thing, since you presume that juries in general award too much.

I do not think I will change anyone’s mind on this subject, but I do want to raise the point that suburban and rural juries view medical malpractice liability in a different context from urban juries. The former are generally subjected to far more propaganda from the insurance lobby, a relentless assault of horror stories about hospitals closing and doctors leaving and greedy trial lawyers playing the jury slot machine on the road to jackpot justice. Suburban and rural jurors also typically have access to one, and only one, hospital, and are prohibited by law from knowing the amount of their verdict which will be covered by insurance rather than the hospital itself.

As such, I submit to you that plaintiffs in suburban and rural venues are not given a fair chance, as suburban and rural jurors are led to believe that they are in essence entering awards against themselves, rather than an insurance company.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

WhiteCoat (and later Walter Olson) directed me to this op-ed in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette by Gerald F. O’Malley, a Philadelphia-based emergency physician:

... Governor Rendell recently declared that Pennsylvania's malpractice lawsuit abuse crisis is over. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Rendell's announcement comes on the heels of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's annual Malpractice Filings Report, but the court's numbers tell only a part of the story.

The Court reports only the number of cases filed -- not the number of litigants within those cases.

Most cases of alleged medical malpractice include multiple defendants as personal injury lawyers typically sue everyone whose name appears anywhere on the patients' chart.

...

The Court reports a statewide decrease of 41 percent in malpractice filings in 2008 -- but that is comparing the 2008 case filings against a "baseline" of cases filed in 2000-02. The meaningful statistics show 2008's numbers are only a 3 percent decrease from cases filed in 2007. The 3 percent number becomes irrelevant when the multiple litigants within each case are factored in.

You can read the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s Annual Malpractice Report (PDF) and Governor Rendell’s press release.

Dr. O'Malley's argument is a complete mess.

First, his column references no numbers, figures or data at all, not even to support his primary argument that the number of defendants in medical malpractice cases has increased. I do not even know where he could find such data, as the number of defendants is not recorded by the Supreme Court's medical malpractice statistics.

Second, the number of defendants in a case has little to do with the decisions of the plaintiff’s attorney or the plaintiff. By law, before a patient in Pennsylvania can sue any healthcare provider, their attorney must obtain a certificate of merit from a duly licensed and qualified physician with regard to each defendant; doctors and hospitals can't just be added willy-nilly. 

Just as importantly, as a practical matter, plaintiff's lawyers must add every health care provider who could be responsible -- if they do not, then the defense lawyer for the health care provider most responsible for the harm will inevitably start pointing their fingers at everyone else. In such a situation, the "additional defendant" is in the case by name only, and is dismissed as soon as the "real" defendant is willing to stipulate that they will not point the finger at them.

Third, the number of defendants in Pennsylvania malpractice cases does not play a significant role in increasing or decreasing the insurance premiums paid by doctors and hospitals. Adding a defendant does nothing to increase plaintiff's damages (and thus the size of the settlement or verdict), and it generally makes it harder to prove liability and win the case, because it makes the whole trial more complicated. 

In short, Dr. O’Malley is making an issue out of nothing. Indeed, Dr. O’Malley practically admits as much in his article by not recommending anything that could be done to fix this “problem.” His argument is thus as meaningless as it is baseless.

But let’s talk about some of the facts here.

First, the most comprehensive study done on medical malpractice verdicts by a team of researchers at Harvard Medical School found that three-quarters of all plaintiffs who won had indeed suffered injury to due medical malpractice, and that one-quarter of those plaintiffs who lost had also suffered medical malpractice.

Second, the malpractice filings report shows that more than 80% of plaintiffs in Pennsylvania lose at trial.

Keep those two facts in mind: more than 4 out of 5 plaintiffs lose, and those that do win should win.

Yet, Dr. O’Malley notes:

Since May 2002, when Act 13 was passed requiring physicians to self report when sued for malpractice, more than half of the state's 25,000 doctors have been sued. The Pennsylvania Medical Board, an agency of state government, found that only a fraction of all malpractice cases merit any action which is an indication that rampant medical liability lawsuit abuse exists in Pennsylvania.

I don’t know the polite way to say this: Dr. O’Malley has no idea what he is talking about.

You can read the Pennsylvania Medical Board’s mission statement yourself. The Board “regulates the practice of medical through the licensure, registration and certification of members of the medical profession in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.” It has no interest in, and makes no findings with regard to, medical malpractice.

Indeed, the only time the board and medical malpractice liability intersect is when, by way of malpractice, a doctor shows himself to be “an immediate danger to the public health and safety.” You can read some of the recent disciplinary actions here. Other than "immediate danger," the board generally only takes "action" when a doctor, for example, is “convicted of a felony in a federal court” or “failed to report information regarding disciplinary action by a healthcare licensing authority of another state.”

But maybe the Board of Medicine should become more involved in medical malpractice. Here's a critical finding from the most recent National Practitioner Data Bank report:

Physicians with at least two Malpractice Payment Reports were responsible for the majority of Malpractice Payment Reports for physicians: Approximately 33.2 percent of the 146,309 physicians with Malpractice Payment Reports had 2 or more such reports. These 48,566 physicians had a total of 138,199 Malpractice Payment Reports. This was 58.6 percent of the 235,942 Malpractice Payment Reports in the NPDB for physicians.

A few physicians were responsible for a large proportion of malpractice payment dollars paid: The 1 percent of physicians with the largest total payments in the NPDB were responsible for about 11.7 percent of all the money paid for physicians in malpractice judgments or settlements reported to the NPDB. The 5 percent of physicians with the largest total payments in the NPDB were responsible for just under a third (31.4 percent) of the total dollars paid for physicians. Eleven percent (11.6 percent) of physicians with at least one malpractice payment were responsible for half of all malpractice dollars paid from September 1, 1990 through December 31, 2006.

In Pennsylvania, generally half of the payments from the CAT / MCARE fund (which uses taxpayer funds to provide additional malpractice insurance) are made to settle claims against just 2% of doctors.

Fact is, there is a small minority of doctors who are simply terrible at their jobs, just as there are a small number of incompetent lawyers, bank tellers, teachers, cops, engineers, office managers, and every other occupation. In most occupations, though, these people are weeded out over time, but in the distorted marketplace of medical malpractice insurance, the taxpayer foots the bill to keep these bad doctors in practice. That's why physician insurance premiums are so high: to pay for the claims brought against a tiny minority of incompetent doctors who repeatedly injured patients.

Truth is, filings and payouts in medical malpractice in Pennsylvania have declined dramatically, and you have to go back 10 years to find out the last time so little was paid to resolve claims. Malpractice reform is "working" even under the health care providers' and insurance companies' definition: far less is being paid to injured patients than was in the past, even as the population grows.

So how did that happen? We will talk about that in the next post, going into the three major changes made by MCARE: tightening the rules for qualifying experts, restricting the venue in which plaintiffs can file suit and requiring certificates of merit prior to filing suit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

The case filed by the family of Staff Sergeant Ryan D. Maseth (an Army Ranger, Green Beret and combat veteran) got a lot of press when it was first filed: 

On Jan. 2 of this year, Sgt. Maseth, of Shaler, stepped into the shower at his quarters in Baghdad's safe Green Zone and was electrocuted.

...

According to the Army Criminal Investigation Division, Sgt. Maseth died when the electricity in the shower facility short-circuited because an electric water pump on the rooftop was not properly grounded.

...

Yesterday, in a quest for someone to be held accountable, Sgt. Maseth's parents sued KBR Inc., the multibillion-dollar contractor hired to maintain and repair the electrical infrastructure at the Radwaniyah Palace complex in Baghdad, a former estate of Saddam Hussein, where Sgt. Maseth was killed.

Attorney Patrick K. Cavanaugh said the military and the contractor had known about the electrical problem since February 2007, yet it went uncorrected.

"The Defense Contract Management Agency, we believe, authorized [the contractor] to the tune of millions of dollars to make the repairs. And they never made the repairs," Mr. Cavanaugh said. "And we don't know why. A simple repair -- just ground the building -- and Ryan would be alive today."

A little over a month ago, United States District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's motion to dismiss, which raised two defenses irrelevant to blatant negligence by a civilian electrical contractor working on a military base: the "political question doctrine" and the "combatant activities" exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"). 

After they lost the motion to dismiss, Defendant KBR moved to halt the litigation so they could file an interlocutory appeal with the Third Circuit. (Normally, appeals must await a "final order" on the case that resolves all the issues, such as a dismissal or judgment.)

Here's the standard for an interlocutory appeal, as recited by the Court:

28 U.S.C. § 1292, entitled "Interlocutory decisions," provides:

When a district judge, in making in a civil action an order not otherwise appealable under this section, shall be of the opinion that such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference in opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation, he shall so state in writing in such order.

28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). Section 1292(b) grants the Court of Appeals jurisdiction to review the District Court's interlocutory order. "Certification pursuant to § 1292(b) should be granted 'sparingly' and only when three conditions are met: (1) where immediate appeal may avoid protracted and expensive litigation, (2) the request involves a controlling question of law, and (3) where there is a substantial basis for differing opinion." The party seeking the interlocutory appeal has the burden to establish that all three conditions are met. However, this Court has discretion to deny an interlocutory appeal even if that party meets its burden. See Bachowski v. Usery, 545 F.2d 363, 368 (3d Cir. 1976)("The certification procedure is not mandatory; indeed, permission to appeal is wholly within the discretion of the courts, even if the criteria are present.").

(citations without quotes omitted) Harris v. Kellogg, Brown, & Root Servs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36253 * 2-3 (April 30, 2009).

Defendant KBR argued, in essence, that an appeal was warranted because "there is a lack of precedent within the Third Circuit" on these issues. That, however, is not grounds for a "substantial basis of differing opinion," since a lack of precedent is not the same thing as differing precedent. The Court accordingly rejected defendant's argument.

Defendant KBR then waved the bloody shirt of "costly discovery" (after litigating the heck out of the case so far with "voluminous" submissions) and piously claimed years of delay would not prejudice the plaintiffs, prompting the following refreshing course in reality:

First, Staff Sergeant Maseth died on January 2, 2008 and only limited discovery relevant to KBR's motion to dismiss has been permitted to this point, nearly a year and a half later. At the outset of this case, KBR took the position that despite its submission of voluminous evidence in support of its motion to dismiss that no discovery was necessary prior to the Court's resolution of its motion. (See Docket No. 56). Alternatively, KBR requested that the Court permit only limited discovery related to the issues raised in its motion. (Id.). The Court acquiesced to KBR's request, finding that the justiciability issue raised by KBR should be resolved prior to any further discovery being conducted. Now that KBR's motion to dismiss has been denied, Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to conduct discovery relevant to their claims on liability without the further delay which would be caused by any appeal. To that end, it is axiomatic that over time witnesses' memories may fade, they may become unavailable and/or physical evidence may be lost, destroyed or misplaced.

Second, due to the nature of this case and based on representations by counsel to the Court, many prospective witnesses are literally located around the globe and are potentially serving in the military or working for private military contractors in war zones where they may be at risk of serious injury or death. Again, any further delay in permitting discovery of these individuals could prevent both parties from discovering information relevant to their claims and/or defenses.

Third, to the extent that KBR, a multi-billion dollar international corporation, argues that an appeal is warranted based on financial concerns due to the potential avoidance of "costly discovery in this litigation," (see Docket No. 162 at 6), the Court is certainly mindful of the costs of litigation. However, in light of the fact that the individual Plaintiffs have not raised any such concerns, the Court is not persuaded.

Finally, as discussed above, KBR's motion was denied, without prejudice, and its counsel has already represented to the Court that it intends to re-file its motion and/or a summary judgment motion based on the political question doctrine and/or the combatant activities exception, once all discovery is complete.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Not too long ago, I believe at the recommendation of Walter Olson at Overlawyered, I started reading WhiteCoat Rants (renamed WhiteCoat's Call Room when he moved to Emergency Physicians Monthly), an anonymous blog authored by a voluble ED doctor.

I have over 300 feeds in my Google Reader, including venture capitalists, scientists, professors, economists, security professionals, and ship captains, and while I frequently read Grand Rounds, I didn't regularly follow many practicing physicians.

So, what the heck.

I didn't expect to comment or to debate, just get another perspective. I have my own blog in part to channel the temptation to respond when Someone Is Wrong On The Internet into a more productive form. That said, I think it's worthwhile to chime in on another blog when I think it will add value to the discussion, which is what happened with WhiteCoat's defensive medicine post, my response, his reply, and my sur reply.

Defensive medicine is a controversial topic made worse by the absence of good empirical data about its existence or prevalence. A GAO study in 2003 found the effect to be minimal and possibly non-existent, and I think the whole idea of "defensive" medicine is conceptually flawed, but it's such a broad, hot-button subject that I don't expect many minds to change one way or another over it.

I didn't expect the same for EMTALA.

Here's the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM):

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) was included in the COBRA legislation of 1986. It was promulgated to combat the discriminatory practice of some hospitals transferring, discharging, or refusing to treat indigent patients coming to the emergency department because of the high cost associated with diagnosing and treating these patients with emergency medical conditions. While the Act applies to all Medicare participating hospitals, it protects anyone coming to a hospital seeking emergency medical services, not just Medicare beneficiaries. EMTALA imposes strict penalties including fines and exclusion from the Medicare program for violations of the Act. The Act imposes three primary requirements on Medicare participating hospitals that provide emergency medical services.

• The hospital must provide an appropriate medical screening exam to anyone coming to the ED seeking medical care;

• For anyone that comes to the hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must treat and stabilize the  emergency  medical    condition, or the hospital must transfer the individual; and

• A hospital must not transfer an individual with an emergency medical condition that has not been stabilized unless several conditions are met that includes effecting an appropriate transfer.

Emphasis mine to highlight some issues.

In my view, EMTALA reflects the way that most people expect an emergency department to function. If you go to an emergency department, they will check to see if you have an emergency and, if so, will treat you until you no longer have an emergency. The outrage that follows every "patient dumping" story supports this view; it's also no small matter that the winning Presidential candidate explicitly endorsed medical care as a "right." (EMTALA implicitly creates a "right" to emergency medical screening and stabilizing at Medicare-recipient hospitals by permitting patients to sue if they are denied that "right.")

I'm not surprised that emergency physicians dislike a law that requires they spend their time (and hospital resources) screening and stabilizing individuals who often can't or won't pay, at least not pay enough, particularly as emergency departments increasingly become the de facto primary care physicians for millions of Americans. It gives them the burden of being a first-responder without the benefit of stable salaries and guaranteed government funding.

What surprised me was the anathema was directed at the concept of EMTALA rather than the execution, even as the physicians spoke of wanting to ensure access to healthcare for all.

Just as most people expect the ED to check them out when they have a problem, most people expect that the ED will be funded in some reasonable fashion. If you have private insurance, your insurance will be billed. If you are on Medicare, Medicare will cover. If you are impoverished, Medicaid will cover, even for undocumented aliens.

But that's not how it works in the real world. There's a reason that an industry like "professional coding" -- not even middlemen, but people who input data for use by middlemen! -- exists. Health insurance companies routinely deny reasonable care already performed. Medicare reimbursements are low and difficult to process, and Medicaid is worse than Medicare and not even fully funded in the first place.

Some suggestions for reforming the economics behind emergency medicine make sense, like this one from the American College of Emergency Physicians:

Some health insurance plans deny claims for legitimate emergency departments visits, based on a patient's final diagnosis, rather than the presenting symptoms (e.g., when chest pain turns out not to be a heart attack). Some also attempt to require preauthorization before a patient can seek emergency medical care, resulting in denied payment. These managed care practices endanger the health of patients and threaten to undermine the emergency care system by failing to financially support America's health care safety.

ACEP advocates for a national prudent layperson emergency care standard that provides coverage based on a patient's presenting symptoms, rather than the final diagnosis. In addition, health insurers should cover EMTALA-related services up to the point an emergency medical condition can be ruled out or resolved.

 But for every specific, reasonable proposal like that, you get a complaint like this (also from ACEP):

According to a May 2003 American Medical Association (AMA) study, emergency physicians annually incur, on average, $138,300 of EMTALA-related bad debt. Approximately 95.2% of emergency physicians provide some EMTALA mandated care in a typical week and more than one-third of emergency physicians provide more than 30 hours of EMTALA-related care each week.

Sounds bad, but those figures are useless since they're a mish-mash of several distinct problems.

What does "EMTALA-related" mean? A prior paper of ACEP's defined "uncompensated care" and "bad debt" as any care where the physician or hospital collected less than they billed, which means every denied private insurance claim, every denied Medicare claim, and every denied Medicaid claim in addition to the totally unreimbursed care most people assume is meant by "EMTALA-related."

Which means the "EMTALA-related" figure above conflates every single billing issue affecting emergency departments into "EMTALA-related bad debt," even where most of it has nothing to do with EMTALA.

Combine that with self-congratulatory, self-contradictory praise like "Emergency physicians are proud to serve as an essential part of the nation's health care safety net, open 24/7, caring for everyone, regardless of ability to pay or insurance status," and you have to wonder if anything's actually wrong with the system if they "proudly" follow EMTALA's dictates yet blatantly manipulate numbers to oppose EMTALA itself.

That's what I wanted to describe to WhiteCoat when he again raised the specter of EMTALA as the cause of several ED stories, including the closing of the ED at Northeastern Hospital here in Philadelphia. I posted a comment.

He took it to heart.

I don't agree with his conclusions (no surprise), and a discussion on the merits is best left until later, but it's gratifying to see that I could offer him and his readers a different perspective, just as they've offered me.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (8)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

 You may have seen this article in The American Lawyer:

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partner Barry Ostrager isn't exactly mincing words in his assessment of the counsel that guided Chubb Insurance to the U.S. Supreme Court, where on Monday it will square off against Ostrager's insurance company client, Travelers Indemnity. "Whoever has been advising Chubb," he told the Litigation Daily on Friday, on a train en route to Washington, "gave them the worst advice any lawyer ever gave a client." ...

Way back in 1986, Manhattan federal bankruptcy court judge Burton Lifland confirmed the Chapter 11 reorganization plan of the granddaddy of all asbestos companies, Johns-Manville Corp. The plan was groundbreaking. It created a trust, to be funded by Johns-Manville and its insurers, through which all asbestos claims against the company would be processed. ...

Fast-forward to 2001, when asbestos plaintiffs lawyers began testing new theories of liability against insurance companies. They filed tortious interference suits -- which have become known as "direct action" claims -- asserting that insurers had an independent duty to warn potential victims of the dangers of asbestos. In 2002, Travelers asked Judge Lifland -- the Manville bankruptcy judge -- to enjoin the "direct action" cases. ...

At this point, Chubb became involved. Chubb hadn't been part of the Manville deal but it was worried that if Judge Lifland approved the Travelers settlement, it would be precluded from suing Travelers in cases in which they shared liability. Chubb aligned with the asbestos plaintiffs lawyers to challenge the bankruptcy court's power to enjoin suits against parties other than the debtor. (That's the decision that Ostrager has scorned.)

That bothered Stephen Cozen enough that he wrote a letter to The American Lawyer, deriding Ostranger as a "noncredible source ... launching ad hominem attacks."

The irresistible part is that this feud involves none other than the In re Johns Manville Corp. constellation of cases, including 06-2320 (2nd Cir., Jan. 17, 2007), in which Mr. Ostrager's cross-appeal was rejected because:

Travelers had 14 days to file its notice of cross-appeal. However, the firm calculated the 14 days from the date it received the notice, not from the date the notice was actually filed. The district court denied Traveler’s motion to extend the deadline by one day, explaining that this was a case of “garden variety attorney inattention” and not excusable neglect. The Second Circuit affirms.

Doh! But let's focus on the supposed worst advice ever.

The Travelers / Simpson argument is that Chubb / Cozen should have kept their mouths shut and not attempted to intervene, because the arguments they made (or the precedent created) in support of intervention could be used by plaintiffs attempting to sue Chubb in a later "direct action" case involving an asbestos trust.

There is something to be said for not putting forth your best argument in a particular case as part of a broader strategy involving other cases. That something is: you should not sandbag your own arguments in one case unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it will help you in other cases.

The law of unintended consequences applies to the practice of law just as it applies to everything else. What, exactly, did Travelers / Simpson believe would happen in the absence of the Chubb / Cozen intervention? That the billion-dollar asbestos plaintiffs lawyers industry would not realize a bankruptcy court's injunction protecting a non-debtor raised serious statutory and constitutional concerns?

We already know exactly the opposite is true, and that the asbestos plaintiffs lawyers were already challenging the power of the court to enjoin the "direct action" cases against insurance companies. These issues were already destined for the Circuit Courts and the Supreme Court. The difference was the names on the briefs.

Where then would that have left Chubb if Cozen had told them to sit on their rights and not intervene? Had the Supreme Court denied certiorari for the appeal, or if the Supreme Court agrees with the Second Circuit in prohibiting the bankruptcy court from enjoining these suits, then Chubb would have been left out in the cold, potentially precluded from raising issues relating to hundreds of millions of dollars in insurance coverage and tort liability.

Could that be in the running for the worst advice a lawyer ever gave a client?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

New to the site? Haven't been here in a while? Here are some of the most popular posts over the past few weeks.

Litigations and Trials:

• Managing Expectations in Defamation Cases: A Legendary Trial Lawyer Faces His First Malpractice Suit
• $120 Million In Hourly Billing For A Single Trial: What Happened In Robertson v. Princeton?
• How Not To Spend $120 Million In Hourly Fees On A Single Trial: A Few Questions for Robertson v. Princeton
• The Watchmen Movie Ruling: How Typical Lawyer Obstructionism Can Destroy Your Case
• "Quinn Emanuel Hit With Malpractice Suit" -- More Business Contingent-Fee Madness

Law Practice:

• Creating "The Black Triangle," A Critical Step Before Any Trial, Deposition or Brief
• "The End of Leverage"? What Are BigLaw Associates Really Worth?
• "Remember That Profits Equal Revenues Minus Costs" - The Real Reason for the Billable Hour's Impending Demise

Current Events:

• Can the Octuplets Sue for Medical Malpractice? (Part 1 of 2)
• Differential Diagnosis, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice: Coumadin Edition
• 25 Things About Facebook's Terms of Use and Your Rights
• Facebook and the Law of Stealth Changes in Consumer Contracts

Recent Court Opinions:

• Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court Limits the Special Value to the Plaintiff Damages Doctrine
• Reminder: Contract Disputes Act Requires You Exhaust Administrative Remedies Before Suing the United States Government
• An Ounce of Prevention: Dismissal Upheld In Derivative Suit Because of Independent Inquiry
• The Third Circuit's 1:1 Punitive Damages Ruling: The Lingering Complications of State Farm v. Campbell

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Continuing on from our discussion yesterday, medical malpractice, like any other negligence tort, is proven by showing:

(1) the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff to act a certain way,

(2) that the defendant breached that duty,

(3) that the defendant’s breach caused the plaintiff harm and

(4) that the harm caused is compensable under the law.

In most medical malpractice cases, the first element (the duty) is undisputed: every doctor has a duty to provide appropriate professional care and treatment to their patients. Similarly, the fourth (the harm) is usually not denied, though the defense will raise questions about the degree of harm actually suffered, particularly where significant non-economic damages (a.k.a., “pain and suffering”) are alleged.

In most medical malpractice cases, the fight is over whether the standard of care was breached and whether that breach actually caused the patient’s harm. The latter is sometimes the biggest issue in wrongful death cases, with the defense lawyer arguing that, even if the doctor had not been negligent, the patient still would have died.

The octuplets are different. There’s no question about the second element: the doctor very clearly breached the standard of care by transferring so many embryos through IVF. There’s also little question about the third element: the octuplets’ obstetrical and neonatal care appears to have been impeccable, so any birth injuries (or fetal or neonatal injuries) they suffer were likely caused by the multiple gestation and resulting placental insufficiency and premature birth.

As noted previously, the fourth element is up in the air – they’re all reportedly in good health – but a simple fact of neonatology and pediatrics is that problems can develop months or years down the line. Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, cognitive delays, and cerebral palsy are all very common among premature babies, even those with “normal” NICU courses.

Which leaves us with the first element: did the doctor who transferred those embryos have any duty to the resulting children?

Most of the cases brought arising from IVF revolve around either a failed attempt to prevent or terminate the pregnancy or a fertility clinic’s failure to screen the embryo for genetic defects. In each of those cases, courts have found that the ‘wrongfully born’ child has no claim against the clinic. But let’s take a careful look at what the “wrongful life” laws really prohibit. Here’s Pennsylvania’s statute:

WRONGFUL LIFE.-- There shall be no cause of action on behalf of any person based on a claim of that person that, but for an act or omission of the defendant, the person would not have been conceived or, once conceived, would or should have been aborted.

42 Pa.C.S. § 8305. Yet, as noted last time, that’s not what the octuplets would claim here. There was no attempt or desire to terminate any of them; the problem is that they were gestated in an unsafe manner, not that they should not have been transferred through IVF or gestated or born. They would not be claiming that they should have not been transferred through IVF or should have been aborted, but that one or more of their siblings should have been.

I have not found any cases raising that theory; the law here is anything but settled. To determine if a court would find such a duty, we can turn to that old war horse of law school classrooms, Tarasoff, cited by courts across the country for the factors to be weighed in establishing a legal duty:

[T]he foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff,

the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury,

the closeness of the connection between the defendant's conduct and the injury suffered,

the moral blame attached to the defendant's conduct,

the policy of preventing future harm,

the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and

the availability, cost and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.

Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 17 Cal. 3d 425, 435 (1976). As Tarasoff continued, “The most important of these considerations in establishing duty is foreseeability. As a general principle, a defendant owes a duty of  care to all persons who are foreseeably endangered by his conduct, with respect to all risks which make the conduct unreasonably dangerous."

There’s no doubt of the foreseeability of the danger of transferring eight embryos, and no doubt of the moral, policy and community reasons for recognizing a legal duty. As noted by Dr. Thomas H. Murray, a bioethicist, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine acknowledged in a 2004 report that fertility programs may withhold services when they can provide "well-substantiated judgments" that the child will not receive adequate care, and to exercise such judgment particularly" when significant harm to a future child is likely." A professional duty is thus recognized, so why not a legal one?
 
Yet, in another sense, permitting the octuplets to claim that each other should not have been born raises similar philosophical problems as “wrongful life:” for example, who is to say which sibling should have not been born, and how many? Pennsylvania’s case law on “wrongful life” – a split Supreme Court, which prompted the statute above – gives us a forceful example of how courts (and lawyers) can cut such Gordian knots:

It is undoubtedly true, as a review of the cases on this subject indicates, that legal scholars are able to cite numerous theories and reasons to support the view that recovery must be defeated in all cases of this type, and therefore that courts should not even entertain such complaints. The view that we cannot calculate the value of existence as compared to nonexistence is only one such hyper-scholastic rationale used to deny a cause of action in these cases. Those holding such views are apparently able to overlook what is plain to see: that -- in cases such as this -- a diseased plaintiff exists and, taking the allegations of the complaint as true, would not exist at all but for the negligence of the defendants. Existence in itself can hardly be characterized as an injury, but when existence is foreseeably and inextricably coupled with a disease, such an existence, depending upon the nature of the disease, may be intolerably burdensome. To judicially foreclose consideration of whether life in a particular case is such a burden would be to tell the diseased, possibly deformed plaintiff that he can seek no remedy in the courts and to imply that his alternative remedy, in the extreme event that he finds his life unduly burdensome, is suicide. No court in the land would directly send such a message to these plaintiffs. We deem it unfortunate that some courts have indeed sent that message by implication.

Speck v. Finegold, 497 Pa. 77, 87 (1981, Flaherty, J., concurring).

The irony here is that, while the mother may bear some fault for these circumstances, her claim is far more simple, and more likely to prevail, than her children's claims. Indeed, the parents in the original “wrongful life” case, Becker v. Schwartz, were permitted to claim damages arising from the cost of care and treatment of their child, although not damages for noneconomic and emotional harm. Recall what I wrote above: every doctor has a duty to provide appropriate professional care and treatment to their patient, here the mother, if maybe not the children.

[Here's Part 1, see also Can a Patient Consent to Medical Malpractice? (A Followup on the Octuplets)]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

News has spread far and wide of the octuplets born to Nadya Suleman at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in California.

In one sense, their birth and continued life is a “miracle,” as they made it to 30 weeks gestation, about 8 weeks past the threshold of viability and about 4 weeks past the point at which serious mortality or morbidity are more likely than not. Importantly, the octuplets have made it through their first week of life (sometimes referred to as the “honeymoon” period in neonatal intensive care units) without having any serious complications, like higher-grade intraventricular hemorrhages ("IVH"), a.k.a. “brain bleeds.”

Yet, it was a completely avoidable “miracle,” the same as if Captain Sully on U.S. Airways Flight 1549 had intentionally landed on the Hudson River. Multiple pregnancies are inherently high risk, with the risks increasing exponentially with each new fetus in higher order multiples. Twins are more than twice as dangerous as singletons; triplets are more than one-and-a-half times as dangerous as twins, and on and on.

These risks are well known and accepted within the international medical community, which is why some countries, like as Belgium, prohibit in vitro fertilization of more than one embryo at a time, while others, like Sweden, impose financial disincentives against the practice. Sweden’s national healthcare system covers an unlimited number of single-embryo IVF treatments but only four multiple embryos IVF treatments. Here in the United States, embryo transfers are not regulated by the government, but there are professional guidelines.

The Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology ("SART") and the Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine ("ASRM") produced a joint Guidelines on number of embryos transferred, which, for the 33-year-old Nadia Suleman, holds:

For patients under the age of 35 who have a more favorable prognosis, consideration should be given to transferring only a single embryo. All others in this age group should have no more than 2 embryos (cleavage-stage or blastocyst) transferred in the absence of extraordinary circumstances.

Ms. Suleman certainly had a “more favorable prognosis” considering that she had six prior children, all of them through IVF.

Which brings us to the medical malpractice: what on earth was their doctor doing?

Some have speculated that the octuplets simple couldn't have come from IVF, since it's so far outside the guidelines, but everything we know from Kaiser Permanente tells us that's exactly what happened. Perhaps most troubling:

According to [Suleman's mother's] account, when her daughter discovered that she was expecting multiple babies, doctors gave her the option of selectively reducing the number of embryos, but she declined.

"Discovered?" She didn't expect multiples from eight embryos?

It’s hard to overstate how foolish, reckless and irresponsible it is for any physician to transfer eight embryos in IVF, particularly to a young and healthy mother with a history of successful pregnancies. The Suleman octuplets have become celebrities precisely because of the rarity of their situation – which is not over by any means – since, in the past, every octuplet pregnancy in the United States has resulted either in miscarriages (frequently miscarriage of all the embryos) or the death of at least one of the neonates, possibly more.

The procedure itself was reckless; to have done it without the patient's informed consent was unconscionable.

Tomorrow we'll talk about the law.

To raise a couple points now, every jurisdiction I know of, following the seminal New York case Becker v. Schwartz, prohibits the claim for "wrongful life," based in part upon the idea that the law is simply incompetent to calculate the "damages" that arise as a result of being born or born with a disability as compared to never existing in the first place. Parker v. Chessin, mod. sub nom. Becker v. Schwartz, 46 N.Y.2d 401, 413 N.Y.S.2d 895, 386 N.E.2d 807 (1978).

But that's not really the issue here. In contrast to a "wrongful life" claim, where the person born claims they should not have been, the octuplets born here can claim that while they should have been born, one or more of the other octuplets should not have been, and that each was put in danger by the others. That may become important soon -- while the first week is over without any apparent birth injury, the first month and first two years, both important milestones, are not. If it turns out that any of the octuplets has, say, bronchopulmonary dysplasia or cerebral palsy, it can hardly be said that the damages of having BPD or CP due to placental insufficiency and being born premature are philosophically impossible to calculate.

And then we'll get to the mother's claims; can she, for example, recover the cost of raising seven additional children?

[Continued at Part 2, see also Can a Patient Consent to Medical Malpractice? (A Followup on the Octuplets)]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (6)
• Trackbacks (2)
• Share Link

After my post yesterday, "Differential Diagnosis, Defensive Medicine and Medical Malpractice: Coumadin Edition," the original physician responded on WhiteCoat's Call Room at length:

Max Kennerly is another lawyer that posted a response on his blog “Litigation & Trial.” He accused me of being afraid to use the “basic principle of clinical medicine known as differential diagnosis” - which he defines as “a process of elimination by which physicians reach a diagnosis by eliminating the most serious and unlikely diagnoses first before continuing their basic evaluation.”

What Mr. Kennerly is apparently suggesting is that, rather than use medical education and heuristics, physicians “shoot the moon” and order “million dollar workups” on every patient complaint. Forget that a runny nose and cough in a child are highly likely to be a viral upper respiratory infection. According to Mr. Kennerly, physicians have to “eliminat[e] the most serious and unlikely diagnoses first … before continuing their basic evaluation.” Because runny nose and cough could also be signs of serious and unlikely diagnoses like bronchopulmonary dysplasia, pandemic bird flu, and inhaled foreign bodies, Mr. Kennerly is apparently asserting that every child with a runny nose and a cough requires a NICU admission, full isolation precautions, viral cultures for H5N1 influenza virus, a call to the CDC (just to be sure), and bronchoscopy before physicians can breathe a sigh of relief and recommend nasal suction and honey (cold syrup is much too dangerous - just ask all the pediatricians). Did I miss anything in my “differential,” sir?

Mr. Kennerly then takes issue that I would consider discharging a woman with a mild head injury who developed a headache 5 days later and who was also taking coumadin. Bleeding in the brain must be ruled out “even after minor accidents,” according to an article he cited from the NIH. But Mr. Kennerly does not stick to his own script. Many “serious and unlikely diagnoses” can cause a headache. Using Mr. Kennerly’s logic, it is likely that “differential diagnosis” algorithm he proposes would require me to get an MRI and MRA to rule out vascular causes of headache and to perform a lumbar puncture to rule out pseudotumor cerebrii. While he may have some success getting a jury to believe that “his” is the way medicine should be practiced, it just isn’t so.

...

I removed the second half; I'll have to answer that later.

I responded in his comments section:

Thanks for the link! It’s great to get a dialogue going.

Just to be clear, I didn’t use the phrases “shoot the moon” or “million dollar workups,” but I did suggest that physicians should rule out severe and life-threatening conditions first.

I’m surprised you’d disagree. Truth is, you don’t. Think back to all of the examples you provided in your prior post — why did you order all those x-rays and CT scans? To avoid a lawsuit?

Nope — no physician has ever been held liable for not performing an x-ray or a CT scan. There’s no harm from simply not performing a test.

Physicians are liable for not ordering tests when they should have and when harm was caused by that failure. You ordered all those tests because, in your judgment, there was a reasonable chance that the ‘unlikely’ scenario was the actual diagnosis.

Let’s take the 60yo woman on coumadin with the head injury. You tried to dodge those initial facts by recasting it as “a headache” and then listing all the potential but unlikely causes.

Well, she didn’t have “a headache.” She was on coumadin, had a fall, and then had a headache serious enough to bring her to the hostpial, which is why you ordered a CT scan looking for brain bleeding, and not a lumbar puncture looking for pseudotumor cerebrii.

You applied your judgment, saw an unlikely by possible serious complication, and ruled it out. That wasn’t “defensive,” it was “appropriate” — if you didn’t think there was a reasonable chance of her having a brain bleed, then you’d have absolutely no reason to fear a lawsuit.

Moving on to your child with the runny nose and the cough, it’s hard to take your example seriously when you first propose the “child” go to a unit reserved for neonates. If a neonate has an obvious infection, that is a very serious issue that will be treated accordingly, likely with multiple antibiotics and multiple x-rays to repeatedly check pulmonary function.

If by “child” you mean the typical toddler going to a pediatrician, then, yes, I submit to you that if the pediatrician has reason to suspect something more serious than a typical cold then they should rule out that serious possibility. You gave no other facts than “every child with a runny nose and a cough.” I have kids. They’ve had runny noses and coughs. My pediatrician ordered no tests. That’s fine; it was a typical kid with a cold.

But let’s mix it up, the way it happens in real life: my child has had a severe cough for over a week now, has shown trace blood in her mouth, can’t sleep, and won’t eat.

Now what? Go home?

Or should you look for something more?

“Defensive medicine” doesn’t exist — the concept requires a doctor somehow see enough of a risk to fear litigation but not enough of a risk to warrant testing. What sense does that make? Either the doctor fears the serious outcome or they don’t.

But the ball is in your court — what would you have us do different? Set up a, say, 5% rule? As in, if something has a less than 5% likelihood, physicians as a matter of law need not look for it?

You tell me. I hold doctors to the standard of keeping people safe by making sure patients don’t have any serious or life-threatening complications that are reasonably foreseeable. You want something less than that.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

The magazine Emergency Physicians Monthly hosts a blog called WhiteCoat’s Call Room, which recently posted a complaint about “defensive medicine:”

Why was I ordering all of these things when my clinical judgment led me to believe that they would “probably” not lead to any changes in the patient’s management?

The answer is because in our culture, “probably” doesn’t cut the mustard any more. Clinical medical judgment has been supplanted by the demand that physicians disprove the improbable. Society has made it so that physicians are more concerned with proving that unlikely diagnoses with the possibility of a “bad outcome” don’t exist and with maintaining good Press Ganey scores. Many physicians are afraid to practice rational medicine based upon clinical judgment and physical examination skills. No one wants to face the liability.

The author is complaining about a basic principle of clinical medicine known as “differential diagnosis,” a process of elimination by which physicians reach a diagnosis by eliminating the most serious and unlikely diagnoses first before continuing their basic evaluation.

Using a “differential diagnosis” compels physicians to evaluate patients in a systematic, rational and logical fashion, free of any distractions or other biases that might cloud their judgment. One example is the well-known psychological effect of “confirmation bias,” through which people who hold a particular belief tend to review the available evidence in a way that confirms that belief.

The failure to diagnose -- the failure to use the differential diagnosis -- may be the most common form of medical malpractice.

The author lists a number of situations where they thought they were practicing “defensive medicine” instead of being “rational” (the bulk of which were x-rays that confirmed the absence of bone fractures), including this situation:

A patient in her 60s fell and hit her head 5 days ago. She was having a headache. I couldn’t find a mark on her and was inclined to send her home with pain medications. But she was on Coumadin which put her at risk of bleeding. So I did a CT scan of her head to “make sure” that she didn’t have a bleed. She didn’t.

I’ve lost count of the number of people I’ve seen killed because their physician or hospital ignored the dangers of Coumadin. Here's what the NIH says about Coumadin (PDF):

Because Coumadin reduces the ability of the body to form blood clots, a patient on Coumadin will bleed longer after an injury than a patient not on Coumadin. ...

Bleeding inside the brain, even after minor accidents, can also be deadly.

If a patient in her 60s on Coumadin falls and then has a headache of sufficient severity to bring her to the hospital, then warning bells should be going off.

The fact that this physician would not have ordered the appropriate test -- a CT scan -- but for fears of medical malpractice liability suggests to me we need more liability, not less, since the physician obviously didn't recognize the standard of care dictated that a brain bleed be ruled out before sending her home.

[UPDATE: WhiteCoat replied to me, so I replied to him.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Via Overlawyered, George Will at the Washington Post favorably reviews Philip K. Howard's "Life Without Lawyers:"

Long Beach, N.J., removed signs warning swimmers about riptides, although the oblivious tides continued. The warning label on a five-inch fishing lure with a three-pronged hook says "Harmful if swallowed"; the label on a letter opener says "Safety goggle recommended."

...

Defensive, and ludicrous, warning labels multiply because aggressiveness proliferates. Lawsuits express the theory that anyone should be able to sue to assert that someone is culpable for even an idiotic action by the plaintiff, such as swallowing a fishing lure.

Oh no! Not warning labels. Heaven forbid a company slap a sticker on their product pointing out some of the dangers that the manufacturer, which spent years testing and developing the product, has discovered.

I've never heard of any swallowed-fishing-lure lawsuits and George Will doesn't give any examples. I'd be surprised if a jury heard such "idiotic action" and didn't send the plaintiff home penniless. If a manufacturer thinks that's worth warning about, that's their business. How much does a sticker add to their bottom line? Less than 0.1% of the cost of the good?

Will saves the meat for, of course, a runaway jury:

A predictable byproduct of this theory is brazen cynicism, encouraged by what Howard calls trial lawyers "congregating at the intersection of human tragedy and human greed." So:

A volunteer for a Catholic charity in Milwaukee ran a red light and seriously injured another person. Because the volunteer did not have deep pockets, the injured person sued the archdiocese -- successfully, for $17 million.

The Charity Governance blog has a description of the case and a link to the Court of Appeals' opinion, which was upheld due to an even split by the Wisconsin Supreme Court.

George Will is tilting at windmills. The theory of 'respondeat superior' -- in which a 'master' is responsible for the conduct of their 'agent' -- is centuries old. In the Milwaukee case, it was undisputed the volunteer was acting in the course of her volunteering for the Christ King Legion of Mary, a volunteer organization staffed and run entirely by the Christ King church.

The question was whether the volunteer was also acting on behalf of Christ King itself, which had a poorly-worded insurance policy that appeared to cover volunteers working on behalf of church employees.

Mr. Hjalmer Heikkiknen (yes, the greedy, cynical man has a name) was 82-years-old at the time. Liability was not denied, as the volunteer had admittedly run a red light.

The accident caused Mr. Heikkiknen to lose a leg as well as all bladder and bowel function, so that he's now completely dependent on others, including his wife. The $17 million was broken down as $558,366.06 for past medical expenses, $750,000 for future medical expenses, $10,000,000 for past pain, suffering and disability, $5,000,000 for future pain, suffering and disability, and $500,000 to Amelia Heikkinen for loss of society and companionship.

Let's not be coy: Mr. Heikkiknen's will spend the rest of his life confined to his bed, with most of time directed towards cleaning and managing his bodily fluids because someone deliberately ran a red light in a rush to deliver a statue. $17 million sounds large, but it's less than half of the $40 million in coverage available. The church will pay not one penny for the case.

I doubt Mr. Heikkiknen will be around to spend much of it. Assuming Congress fixes the bizarre 0% estate tax rate that occurs solely in 2010, then after credits and deductions Mr. Heikkiknen's estate will likely be charged a tax between 30-50% of what's left when he passes away, making the government the principle beneficiary of the verdict.

The bigger issue here is what, exactly, was driving this case. There was no dispute the driver was negligent and no dispute the driver was acting in the course of her work for the church's volunteer group. One "dispute," if you want to call it that, is if the church's ambiguously worded insurance policy also covered the church's volunteer group. The other "dispute" was the exact number it would take to make Mr. Heikkiknen whole again.

It's possible that the insurance company promptly offered a reasonable settlement to cover Mr. Heikkiknen's medical bills, future cost of care, and an amount to alleviate the misery he has and will suffer, and Mr. Heikkiknen nonetheless held out from settling, possibly to leave behind a large inheritance for his wife and children.

It's also unlikely. More likely, the insurance company offered nothing or a pittance, banking that either they would eventually prevail on the terms of the ambiguous insurance contract they themselves drafted or Mr. Heikkiknen would die, severely reducing the potential award by proving that he 'only' spent a few months or years in his catastrophically injured state.

They almost won that bet, except that Wisconsin Supreme Court split evenly. Now the money the insurance company was investing (who knows where, likely the same mixture of public and private equity and government debt as most insurance companies) has now been converted into tax revenue, different investments in the same market, payments to medical providers, and some personal expenses for the Heikkiknen family.

And that's the worst example Howard and Will could find. I'm not impressed.

[UPDATE: Unsurprisingly, other plaintiffs' attorneys, like Brooks Schuelke, are unimpressed.]

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

From the Associated Press:

Pardo's downward slide ended Christmas Eve, when the 45-year-old electrical engineer donned a Santa suit and massacred nine people at his former in-laws' house in Covina, where a family Christmas party was under way. He then used a homemade device disguised as a present to spray racing fuel that quickly sent the home up in flames.

Pardo had planned to flee to Canada following the killing spree but suffered third-degree burns in the fire — which melted part of the Santa suit to him — and decided to kill himself instead, investigators said. His body, with a bullet wound to the head, was found at his brother's home about 40 miles away.

...

Pardo had a 9-year-old son, Matthew, by another former girlfriend, Elena Lucano. He had not seen the child for years, but apparently was claiming him as a dependent for tax purposes. Lucano told the Los Angeles Times that she didn't know Pardo was claiming their son as a dependent.

The boy was left severely brain damaged as a toddler when he fell into a backyard swimming pool on Jan. 6, 2001 while Pardo was alone with him at his former home in Woodland Hills, according to attorney Jeffrey Alvirez, who represented Lucano in the resulting court case.

Medical costs reached $340,000. Lucano sued Pardo to obtain money from his $100,000 homeowner's insurance policy and about $36,000 was put into a trust fund for the boy, who requires constant care. Pardo never contributed any more money to the boy's care.

"He never spent a dime on his son," Alvirez said.

A high school girlfriend described Pardo as, back then, having been "a very easygoing person, a very friendly guy." Now he's the Santa Gunman, after years of ignoring his own disabled child.

I often hear that personal injury plaintiffs want to "get lucky" with their accident, that the most important consideration is to ensure no one gets a "windfall." No doubt, there are plenty of people who want to find a reason to sue or to profit from a trivial infraction. I reject cases like that every day.

But let's be clear: no one who needs a trial lawyer is "lucky." Most of my catastrophic injury or wrongful death cases look like Matthew's. A child, a loved one, or an "easygoing, friendly" person was going about their ordinary life, doing something everyone else has done, when something went terribly wrong.

It wasn't too long ago that Matthew's case would be considered a hunt for a "windfall;" after all, they were suing over something his own father did. Law students will recall Arizona's Broadbent v. Broadbent case, 184 Ariz. 74, 907 P.2d 43 (1995), a favorite of textbooks, which involved similar circumstances and the doctrine of "parental immunity."

There are obviously far more causes of the tragedy here -- from mental illness, to a messy divorce, to losing his job -- than his son's accident. But I can't help but wonder what Bruce Pardo's life would have been like if his son had never been injured. I'm sure he wondered, too.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Yesterday’s Wall Street Journal included an editorial by Dan Slater (who runs the WSJ Law Blog) called "The Debate Over Who Pays Fees When Litigants Mount Attacks," suggesting reconsideration of the “English Rule,” in which unsuccessful litigants are required to reimburse their opponent's legal fees and costs (a/k/a the “loser pays” system), as contrasted to the “American Rule,” in which each party bears their own legal expenses: 

Legal experts think a loser-pays system cuts down on frivolous suits. Those clearly hurt the U.S. The nation's tort system cost $245.7 billion in 2003, amounting to about 2.2% of total gross domestic product, according to a report from professional services firm Towers Perrin. The percentage of GDP spent on litigation was at least twice those in the U.K. and Germany.

At the same time, say experts, the insurance helps mitigate the pitfalls of a loser-pays system. "Insurance does move in to fill the gap for those suits that might not otherwise be brought in a loser-pays system," says Paul Lomas, a London-based litigator at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer.

Initially, a few factual corrections are in order.

First, the Towers Perrin study claiming that litigation costs amount to 2.2% of total gross domestic product has been roundly criticized as being baseless and inflated. For example, the study unfairly lumps together actual litigation costs, like attorneys fees, with the routine functioning of our torts and insurance system. As the Wall Street Journal itself noted over two years ago,

But here's the problem: critics of past years' studies -- and there are many -- say the number and the projections that come with it are deeply flawed. For instance, they include payments that don't involve the legal system at all. Say somebody smashes his car into the back of your new SUV and his insurance company sends you a $5,000 check to fix the damage. That gets counted as a tort cost in Tillinghast's number. Critics say it's just a transfer payment from somebody who wasn't driving carefully to somebody who has been legitimately wronged. How is that evidence of a system run amok?

"It's just so inflated," J. Robert Hunter, the director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America and a former Texas insurance commissioner, says of the Tillinghast figure. Critics also argue that other insurance-industry costs that aren't the fault of a burdensome tort system -- such as the salaries of insurance-industry CEOs -- show up in its calculations.

"Math Divides Critics As Startling Toll of Torts Is Added Up," By LIAM PLEVEN, March 13, 2006; Page A2.

Second, plaintiff’s lawyers are in no sense “accustomed to being the exclusive financier of litigation.” The primary "financier" of litigation in America is the insurance industry, turning its good hands into boxing gloves when injured parties seek more than nominal compensation. Even in the context Slater is thinking about – the plaintiff's side of personal injury tort suits – there are hundreds of companies willing to loan money to plaintiff’s firms and/or plaintiffs for a piece of the eventual recovery. Ordinary business banks also loan to firms after performing the same due diligence they would with an company.

All of these companies, however, have the same restriction that would have to be imposed in a loser pays insurance system: the financier has absolutely no say as to whether the case will be settled or not. Such limitation is appropriate to ensure uncompromised decision-making and is analogous to similar barriers on the defense side, in which the defendant, with limited exceptions, retains control over whether to settle and where the defense lawyer nominally represents only the defendant and not the insurance carrier as well, so as not to divide the lawyer's loyalties and prejudice the defendant.

Third, most states already recognize a form of “loser pays” in the claim for wrongful use of civil proceedings, which permits the victims of frivolous lawsuits to recover damages caused by such frivolous lawsuits. It has bite here in Pennsylvania -- the "Dragonetti Act" has resulted in multi-million-dollar outcomes.

There's also, of course, the "loser pays" already at the heart of contingent fee cases: if I lose a case, I get nothing. No reimbursement for my time. No reimbursement for my expenses. Nothing. A total loss.

Which brings me to my primary objection to the loser pays system. I would not object to receiving a guaranteed income like my brethren of the defense bar instead of bearing the risk that years of effort and tens of thousands – potentially hundreds of thousands – of dollars will be spent in vain, but I would object, on grounds of fairness, to penalizing a party that brought a valid claim merely because they did not meet their burden of proof.

Consider a typical medical malpractice case. Most of the facts are uncontested. The dispute centers on whether the physician-defendant breached the standard of care, whether such breach caused any harm, and what damages resulted.

In all states of which I am aware, the first two elements require expert medical testimony. To even start a lawsuit here in Pennsylvania, I need a certificate of merit from a qualified physician establishing those two elements. To prevail at trial, obviously, I need in-court credible testimony from a qualified physician establishing those elements to a reasonable degree of medical certainty.

No expert testimony, no claim. Period. That is to say, by law the first two elements are matters entirely outside the understanding of any plaintiff except for physicians who happen to be victims of malpractice in the specialty they currently practice or teach.

If, in good faith, my client and I believed our qualified expert's opinion on matters the law says are beyond our understanding, why should we be punished if a jury accepts the defendant’s version instead of our's?

Deterrence? Of what? Claims a qualified expert physician thought were valid? Should I be deterred merely because the defense found someone to say otherwise? In medical malpractice, there's always some doctor somewhere willing to say that my client coincidentally suffered a heart attack or stroke or spontaneous decapitation regardless of the record or the probabilities.

Why would we want to deter valid claims? Isn't the point of a civil justice system to offer people the opportunity to present their claims in fair and open court?

I'm wary, too, of considering the lower litigation costs in Europe as a positive sign of judicial health (if, indeed, they are lower, given the inflated numbers of the US study). Many European countries routinely apply legal doctrines we consider abhorrent in the United States, such as the onerous standards applied to publishers in libel cases in the United Kingdom, standards incompatible with First Amendment principles of free speech.

When all is said and done, the effective result of loser pays, whether insured or not, is to change the civil system from one in which a plaintiff must convince a jury of the rightness of their cause with the preponderance of the evidence to one in which a potential client must convince a lawyer and/or insurance company of the rightness of their cause beyond a reasonable doubt. The client must convince the lawyer/insurer not only that their case is worth their damages, but that their case is worth well beyond their damages, to mitigate the direct loss the lawyer or insurer will incur if they lose.

The practical effect, then, would be to intimidate plaintiffs' lawyers like me into rejecting the vast majority of legitimate cases because, even though I may feel they have a strong likelihood of prevailing, I simply can't afford to test my luck with anything other than the handful of cases I'm sure will win.

UPDATE: Dan Slater got plenty of email, as he relates on the WSJ Law Blog.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

The blog "How Appealing" has plenty of links on the $90 million settlement of the donor-intent suit brought against Princeton University by the heirs to the Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (and now A&P supermarket) fortune, alleging misuse of a 1961 donation of $35 million which had swelled in value to over half a billion dollar.

The case was scheduled to go to trial in New Jersey state court in January. Pretrial litigation costs were $40 million for each side. Princeton expected its own trial costs to reach $20 million; it's fair to assume that the Robertson's trial costs would have been the same if not greater.

$80 million to litigate and another $40 million to try a breach of fiduciary duty, accounting and breach of contract dispute between two parties. No appeals, certs, or retrials included.

How could that be? Let's look at how those numbers compare to other complicated cases like patent infringement, white collar criminal defense, and antitrust.

According to the American Intellectual Property Law Association, the average per-party cost to take through litigation and trial a large (over $25 million at stake) patent infringement / dispute is $5 million. (For all patent cases, the average is $1 million). Patent cases are document intensive, involve numerous expensive experts, and typically require dozens of depositions and motions. They're often more complicated than large commercial litigation or breach of fiduciary duty cases.

Yet, the Robertson case would have cost twelve times what the biggest patent cases typically do.

Remember the white collar criminal defense that got WilmerHale sued? That "feeding frenzy" of billing was over $12 million in hourly fees, less than one-third what either side here charged, and it involved more than double the documents of Robertson.

So what happened in Robertson?

Sure, the case wasn't a slip-and-fall:

The university says it produced more than half a million pages of documents in pretrial discovery. The trial witness list had 124 names, 80 witnesses had been deposed, 3,000 pages of briefs were required and 5,000 trial exhibits were identified.

But it wasn't that big. Here's how the District Court described the Visa / Mastercard merchant and debit card antitrust case, which settled just before trial a few years ago:

Class Counsel have litigated this case -- which did not culminate in settlement until the eve of trial -- for seven years. During that time, there were almost 400 depositions of witnesses, including 21 experts who issued 54 expert reports; four rounds of class certification briefing (through the Supreme Court); 16 summary judgment motions, 31 motions in limine, and three Daubert motions; and a pretrial order identifying 230,000 pages of trial exhibits, 730 trial witnesses, and more than 17,000 deposition designations

In re Visa Check/Mastermoney Antitrust Litig., 297 F. Supp. 2d 503 (E.D.N.Y., 2003). Now that's big.

Yet, that much work -- several orders of magnitude larger than Robertson -- resulted in a "lodestar" (hours times prevailing rates) fee calculation of $62,545,603 for plaintiffs' counsel, or one and a half times each side's bill in Robertson.

The Robertson case was filed July 17, 2002. In the 6 years, 4 months, and 24 days leading up to the settlement announcement, the parties averaged $34,202.65 in costs every single day, or about the same as if each side had one of the most expensive partners in the country (each at $1,000 an hour) and two of the most expensive associates in the country ($600 an hour per associate) working every single day, including weekends and holidays, from 8am to 6pm, taking no more than 2.2 hours in their work day to do anything else, including eating, twittering or answering angry phone calls from their abandoned spouses.

Using more reasonable numbers, like an average rate of $348 an hour, and seven hours of actual, billable hours per day, we still end up with the ridiculous conclusion that each side had seven lawyers working full time for them every day, including weekends and holidays.

Some of these numbers may be unfair. For instance, both sides hired major accounting firms to prepare extensive expert reports. So let' s very generously assume that these firms performed the same level of accounting work as required for companies with under $1 billion in annual revenue to ensure complete Sarbanes-Oxley compliance: $2.8 million (which I think is a high estimate) for each side.

Let's also assume "costs," like copying, postage, phone calls and research equal about 5% of overall billing, as is often the case in business representation. I think that's actually generous here -- $2 million per side will get you an awful lot of copies.

Adding in those expert fees and costs drops the attorneys' fees to $70.4 million, or a mere $30,098.33 every single day. Using our "reasonable" hourly rates and billable hours, that's a team of six lawyers working full time every day, including weekends and holidays. For each side.

That's outrageous: other than the fees, Robertson was closer in size to complicated personal injury litigation than a large, complex commercial dispute like a patent, antitrust, or securities case.

Multi-defendant, multi-claim personal injury cases -- e.g., a catastrophic injury or wrongful death at a construction site that raises both product liability and negligence issues -- frequently exceed 100,000 documents, 100 potential witnesses, 50 depositions, and 1,000 trial exhibits. I can't judge what the article meant by 3,000 pages of "briefs," but, based on the motions and orders available online, I assume that number includes pleadings, motions and exhibits, which is not at all impressive.

Tomorrow we'll look at how not to spend $120 million bringing a case to trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

Beck and Herrmann at Drug and Device Law are mostly right:

What, our reader asked, should companies do to minimize the risk that they become embroiled in a mass tort?

Ha!

There's an old political cartoon, maybe from The New Yorker, where a man is strolling down a city street. The caption reads: "Exercises regularly. Eats right. Doesn't smoke. Doesn't drink. Has regular check-ups." In the cartoon itself, you see that a safe has fallen out of a window and is about do this poor fellow in.

...

Do everything right. Obey the law. ... Comply with industry standards. ... Avoid [the need for] recalls.

All well and good: want to avoid liability? Don't cause others harm through a breach in the standard of care.

I'm not so hot on the second part of their advice:

Have a corporate communications policy that instructs employees to communicate only facts -- not unsupported opinions or snide comments -- in e-mails. ...

Draft a document retention policy, and then enforce it. Preserve what you need, and eliminate what's unnecessary.

Unless those policies manage to eliminate 'smoking gun' documents -- which I doubt, given how a 'gun' is normally made 'smoking' by a party failing to "do everything right" -- then they won't reduce the frequency of litigation or size of liability, they'll just create gaps in the documentary record. That's a problem for defendants for two reasons:

First, it may enable plaintiff's lawyers like me to fill those gaps with whatever I think was there. Sometimes that happens by way of circumstantial evidence. Sometimes -- and this situation can be much worse for defendants -- the absence of documentary evidence leaves the defendant's deposition and trial testimony ungrounded, allowing me to set and spring traps for deceptive witnesses, walking them where they don't want to go and making them look like liars when they do it.

Second, I'll get a copy of those communications and document retention policies in discovery, and I will use them to show that the company actually established a policy to discourage employees from recording their own opinions. Add that to the point above and, well, you might have yourself a recipe for disaster. Fact is, whenever there are gaps in the documentary record, it increases the importance of witness credibility. If, by design, your company didn't keep a thorough record and I reveal one of your employees to have been less than candid, then you're toast.

Point is (and this is, I believe, Beck and Herrmann's main point): there's no panacea for litigation/liability avoidance. If you did something wrong or look like you did something wrong, you increase the likelihood of getting sued.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ugh. I've got a couple issues with this Daily Business Review article:

A Fort Lauderdale, Fla., man, who is suing two Broward County doctors for malpractice in a rare case allowing a punitive damages claim contends one of his surgeons "left me on the table unconscious to be mutilated" by the other doctor.

Thomas Glasson, a former lawyer, claims his plastic surgeon later lied about his detached role in the botched surgery, created two sets of medical records to hide the truth and still billed his insurance company for performing surgery.

Attorney Spencer Aronfeld of Aronfeld & Associates of Coral Gables, Fla., who represents Glasson, said the punitive damages option is unusual in Florida and nationally. Broward Circuit Judge Peter Weinstein issued an order in July putting punitive damages in play, and Florida's 4th District Court of Appeal on Sept. 29 denied a petition for a writ of certiorari on the issue. The trial is set for March 2.

"We're unaware of any other case in the country where a patient has been allowed to allege -- against a physician in a plastic surgery case -- punitive damages for an intentional tort," Aronfeld said.

First, the conduct described in the article was not "intentional." "Reckless," sure. But there was no apparent intent to cause the harm.

Second, while it is rare for a court to permit punitive damages in a medical malpractice case (really, in any case) go to a jury, this particular ruling -- a pretrial denial of defendant's motion to exclude punitives -- is not that major of an event. I had the same ruling in a medical malpractice trial (tried with Catherine Rothenberger) two months ago. It just means the court finds that the plaintiff might be able to show an outrageous disregard for others' safety at trial. The defendant still gets three cracks at knocking punitives out: at nonsuit when plaintiff rests, at directed verdict when defense rests, and, if the jury finds punitives, at judgment notwithstanding the verdict. Then comes appeal.

Third, if they want another case in the country alleging punitive damages against a plastic surgeon, they need only look to the Fledderman case Slade McLaughlin and I took to trial in April and May this year. It resulted in a $20,525,000 verdict, $15,000,000 in punitives. The court also denied defendants' motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and requests to lower the punitive damages.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ronald V. Miller, Jr., at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, on the ball as always:

David Davis, a Massachusetts based jury consultant, offers five thoughts in The Jury Expert on the psychology of how jurors process requests for damage awards that I think is of interest to accident and malpractice lawyers.

I found of particular interest his theory that consumers – and by implication jurors – have a propensity to judge precise amounts of money to be lower in magnitude than similar round prices. The reason is that we tend to use precise numbers for small amounts and round numbers for larger amounts. The example Dr. Davis provides is that a precise number like $325,425 is seen as lower that $325,000 even though obviously the former number is a higher amount.

The implication for personal injury lawyers is obvious: make a request for damages that is a specific amount and back up that amount with some logical foundation. ...

This advice corresponds with the general principle of negotiation that you should start with the highest number that you can reasonably and fairly demand. Of course, when you define "reasonable" and "fair" in such situations, you do so in a way most beneficial to you and your client — the core point is to have a rational basis for your numbers, a basis others will at least consider and not reject out of hand.

There are very few situations in which $500,000 is the "rational" number, even in the context of pain and suffering, which obviously does not have a specific dollar amount. Even if the jury, at the end of the day, will likely compromise on some round number, their decision will be much easier to make if they can build a number from rational, reasonable and fair components.

Those components include, as Ronald Miller writes, per diem amounts. I am fond of including interest and attorneys fees and the like.

Of course, the Maryland injury lawyer is in a completely different situation from me, a Pennsylvania injury lawyer, as Pennsylvania does not allow lawyers to suggest exact numbers to the jury. They can, however, present evidence that includes exact numbers, such as expert analyses of lost wages and fringe benefits, and medical bills. Further, you can of course use whatever numbers you want into settlement demands; there's no reason to keep your persuasive tools on lockdown until trial.

Keep that in mind the next time you write $X,000,000 or $X00,000 as your demand.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

EDD Update points us to this article from Wes Billingsley in the Texas Lawyer:

... all too often, lawyers raise spoliation claims not for legitimate reasons but instead to turn cases lacking substantive merit into opportunities to procure a quick settlement.

...

Openly challenge spoliation allegations through candid discussions with opposing counsel. Often these discussions may become technical in nature and require greater client involvement, but they should reveal quickly whether there is merit to the other side's claims, sometimes even before an opponent files a sanctions motion.

When legitimate concerns about a client's ESI [electronically stored information] do exist, explore other sources from which to obtain the electronic documents. Do not become fixated -- or let the other side fixate -- on the fact that documents from a specific source may no longer be available. The amended rules require that relevant documents be produced once; if the client produces documents from a server or backup tapes, that should be sufficient to refute a spoliation claim that alleges the documents were not also produced from a particular source, such as an individual's personal computer.

If only it were that simple... Unfortunately, the "spurious" spoliation allegation is frequently the only way I can get the other side to actually produce all of the documents I requested.

Take, for example, a typical tractor-trailer trucking accident. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR Part 325 et seq., which have been adopted wholesale by every state of which I'm aware) impose very specific requirements upon motor carriers for the retention of a wide variety of "supporting documents," including bills of lading, waybills, fuel receipts, you name it.

Part 379.7 ("Preservation of Records") should be ideal for plaintiff's lawyers, as it requires:

The records shall be indexed and retained in such a manner as will render them readily accessible. The company shall have facilities available to locate, identify and produce legible paper copies of the records.

That is, it's supposed to be trivially easy for trucking companies to produce these records. If the Department of Transportation asked, they'd have them on the spot.

But when I ask for them, my request is "too vague" and "overly broad" and it would be "unduly burdensome" to produce them. "Candid discussions" get nowhere; motions get somewhere.

Of course, once they are "produced," it soon becomes apparent that I have 90% of the documents I don't care about and 5% of the ones I do.

What to do? Well, I could file yet another discovery motion to clog up the courts after my "candid discussion" fails, or I could inform defense counsel that their failure to retain these documents represents spoliation, and that my experts will testify such missing documents could have revealed whatever it is I'm trying to prove.

Is such an allegation "spurious?" I don't think so, I genuinely believe that the failure to preserve records like that creates a factual issue for the jury to consider. Why not sit down and have a candid discussion with defense counsel about that? It usually gets better results than hearing from defense counsel, over and over again, that certain documents don't exist when you know they should.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Boston Globe details the $175 million settlement of the 200 injured or killed persons who filed civil suits against 75 defendants:

An analysis of the tentative settlements in US District Court in Rhode Island reveals a stark fact: Several defendants whom plaintiffs blamed most for the disaster will likely pay relatively little because of negligible assets; other defendants with more tenuous links to the tragedy - but deeper pockets - will pay more.

"I don't think there's any logic to it at all," said SuS Longiaru, whose disabled 23-year-old son, John, was killed in the fire, which erupted moments after the band took the stage.

Still the 51-year-old Johnston, R.I., woman said she is eager for the settlements to be accepted so she and her family can begin to heal. Corporations and local governments linked to the disaster, even loosely, she said, must take responsibility.

They even have a proportional graph. Of course, we're all supposed to look at that breakdown, where the defendants with the closest causal link to the harm apparently pay the lowest amounts, and conclude that the companies were scared into settlement to avoid a runaway jury abandoning all reason and common sense to throw a jackpot justice verdict at the bereaved, as they always do in wrongful death or catastrophic injury cases.

And so the article dutifully quotes a law professor with no apparent experience in torts practice (whose CV reveals a stint at the insurance-company funded American Enterprise Institute):

Peter H. Schuck, who specializes in tort law at Yale Law School, said some well-heeled companies likely settled to avoid bad publicity and the possibility of huge jury awards.

"The prospect of a jury verdict with punitive damages is one that casts a shadow over these negotiations, even if the defendants feel they have a strong case and aren't liable," he said.

But let's backup. Polyurethane foam has been known since its widespread use to be extraordinarily flammable, and the industry has operated since the early 1970s under a consent decree banning them from the previously-widespread practice of describing their materials in misleading ways to conceal their flammability.  I do not know what the specific allegations were against the polyurethane foam manufacturers and distributors, but it's not crazy talk to say that for decades they have been making a profit off of an extraordinarily dangerous material, the risks of which they have not always been candid about. Would it be surprising if, say, they had not been candid about the risks when selling this foam or that they had manufactured it in a way known to increase the risk of fire deaths? That's over $60 million of the settlement.

Then there's over $40 million from the radio station and beer distributors who paid money to attach their name to and to promote a traveling nightclub pyrotechnic show which apparently possessed none of the required licenses and training to conduct such an event.

Then there's $30 million from the TV station that employed a cameraman who allegedly hindered people from escaping, and $10 million each from the town and state which repeatedly inspected the nightclub and found nothing wrong with its blatant fire code violations.

The balance then comes largely from the more obvious defendants, like the club owners.

Tellingly, there's no indication whatsoever if any of these defendants with "tenuous links to the tragedy" are paying any of the settlement out of pocket, or if it's all insurance coverage. Based on that, I'd assume it's all or nearly-all insurance coverage.

At the end of the day, there is a simple lesson to this settlement: if you have a history of intentionally or recklessly wrongful conduct (like the polyurethane manufacturers), or you are profiting from the intentional or reckless wrongful conduct of others (like the promoters), you should expect to foot the bill for any tragedy relating to that wrongful conduct.

Want to avoid liability in the future? Don't intentionally mislead consumers about matters of life-and-death. Pay attention to what your ostensible agents are doing, particularly with regard to the safety of the public.

Most of the big settlements and verdicts I've seen arise from one problem: the failure to give a second's thought about one's fellow citizen. That's all it would have taken here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Over at PhilaLawyer, an anonymous (and largely humor-focused) part of the Rudius blog network, there are four ideas for "Shyster-Proofing the Courts:"

1. Immediate Mandatory Mediation
2. Allow Expert Witnesses to be Deposed
3. Give Frivolous Litigation Claims Teeth and Allow Expert Witnesses to Be Sued in Such Claims
4. Eliminate Referral Fees

First, let's keep something important in mind: the bulk of civil cases involve automobile accidents. So in some sense we're really missing the boat unless we're talking about that specifically. That said, I doubt any of these would make a difference.

1. Immediate Mandatory Mediation

Because I work on a contingent fee, I would like nothing better than to settle cases as quickly as possible.. Settlement puts money in my pocket, does not require my own money put out on the street for costs and fees, and puts my client back on their feet, a particular concern in personal injury and medical malpractice cases. So don't think I am ever the one driving the litigation.

Problem is, even a hypothetically perfect insurance company that promptly and fairly evaluates every claim, sets an appropriate reserve, and begins negotiation has multiple incentives not to settle early. The insurance company makes a return on every single penny in their reserves, a return that evaporates the moment they tender a check to me. The insurance company also typically starts blind on damages; they know a lot about their insured's liability, but very little about my client's medical expenses, lost wages, and the impact the injury has had on their life, and for obvious reasons the insurance company is not going to take my word for any of them. Finally, the insurance does not know how highly I really value the case. The only way they believe they can estimate my bottomline is by pushing back against me and seeing how I respond. Even at a firm with a strong reputation for taking cases to trial and for rejecting weaker (even though meritorious) cases, there is still a belief among insurers and defense counsel that some of the cases are "nuisance value" cases taken to maintain cash flow, with little expectation of a substantial settlement or verdict.

In the real world, the above analysis does not even happen at the insurance company until the case is ready for trial. The insurance adjuster, who, as a cog in a bureacracy, has the primary goal of demonstrating their usefulness to the bureaucracy by creating an extensive paper trail, frequently does not even bother to set a reserve for the case until trial schedules have been finalized. Similarly, the defense attorney, who gets paid by the 10th of the hour they spend defending the case, has little incentive to encourage a swift resolution of the case, thereby extinguishing a source of income and appearing feckless in the face of controversy.

Thus, by and large early mandatory mediation conferences will function as a subsidy for defense lawyers — by giving them something else to bill for — and a tax on plaintiff's lawyers — by taking them away from their other contingent fee cases. At the conference, the defense attorney will have authority only for a nuisance value while the plaintiff's attorney (who will be a junior associate, if the firm has them) will have authority only for the highest number the plaintiff's attorney can reasonably demand. If there is some external force which could drive early settlement, that force will do so regardless of court intervention.

2. Allow Expert Witnesses to be Deposed

That's already the case in the federal system. While it probably does reduce the need for trial because it puts almost everything on the table, it won't do anything to cut back on litigation. The point about having experts who write bogus opinions expecting a case will never go to trial is well taken, but that's already factored into our current system — if one of the sides thinks the expert will pull out the event at trial, they'll just push the case straight to trial, extracting a favorable settlement while teaching the other side a lesson. Adding a deposition, which would naturally have to occur after discovery (as it does in the federal system), won't really change that dynamic, it just slightly advances the time when the expert pulls out. There might be some savings to that, since it obviates the need for full trial preparation, but those savings would be minimal.

I don't think expert witness depositions are a bad idea, I just don't think they will result in any significant savings. Moreover, in cases worth less than, say, $100,000, expert witness depositions could have the perverse effect of making settlement less likely, because they hike up the costs of bringing the case to trial, thereby requiring the plaintiff and their attorney to raise the demand accordingly to protect the amount they get in the end, which in turn makes it less likely the insurer will meet the demand.

3. Give Frivolous Litigation Claims Teeth and Allow Expert Witnesses to Be Sued in Such Claims

Frivolous lawsuits are already actionable in most states, and are frequently acted upon right here in Philadelphia County. In Pennsylvania, there is specific statutory authorization for them under the so-called Dragonetti Act, named after the first attorney to get really walloped under it. The elements of such a wrongful use of civil proceedings suit seem reasonable to me:

§ 8351.  Wrongful use of civil proceedings

(a) ELEMENTS OF ACTION.-- A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another is subject to liability to the other for wrongful use of civil proceedings:
 
   (1) He acts in a grossly negligent manner or without probable cause and
   primarily for a purpose other than that of securing the proper
   discovery, joinder of parties or adjudication of the claim in which the
   proceedings are based; and
 
   (2) The proceedings have terminated in favor of the person against whom
   they are brought.

...

§ 8352.  Existence of probable cause

A person who takes part in the procurement, initiation or continuation of civil proceedings against another has probable cause for doing so if he reasonably believes in the existence of the facts upon which the claim is based, and either:
 
   (1) Reasonably believes that under those facts the claim may be valid
   under the existing or developing law;
 
   (2) Believes to this effect in reliance upon the advice of counsel,
   sought in good faith and given after full disclosure of all relevant
   facts within his knowledge and information; or
 
   (3) Believes as an attorney of record, in good faith that his
   procurement, initiation or continuation of a civil cause is not
   intended to merely harass or maliciously injure the opposite party.

42 Pa.C.S. § 8351 et seq.
 

If there is a way to improve these elements, I would love to hear it. I personally can't think of any way of strengthening it without making it, at best, confusing and, at worst, a violation of the rights of due process and access to the courts.

As for moving against experts, there is always perjury. Beyond that, it's hard to imagine a worse idea than intimidating witnesses not to say what they really think. The point about this honest experts is, again, well taken, and I have tangled with my fair share of them, but such annoyances must be balanced against minor concerns like truth, justice and fairness. The best you can do now to retaliate against a lying expert is to report them to whatever professional organization of which they are a member, which hopefully have a deterrent effect against future offenders. I am loath to really encourage that idea, though, because by and large professional associations have a serious pro-defense bias, the natural result of a (perhaps understandable) desire to protect and shield their members from liability.

4. Eliminate Referral Fees

I have no idea how that would help anything. Plaintiffs lawyers bill on a contingent fee; if the case is meritless, they're a waste of time and money to pursue. Indeed, referral fees in my opinion actually reduce the number of cases filed, because they cut into the fee earned by the attorney actually pursuing the matter, thus requiring the case be stronger and have larger damages than if the case been brought in directly. Moreover, if there really is a problem of "recidivist professional plaintiffs," what good would it do to eliminate referral fees? They'll simply go to the same attorneys over and over or they'll find attorneys on their own — they're among the few people who really can find the right attorney for them on their own.

More importantly, referral fees serve a critical purpose in the civil justice system, introducing economic efficiency to an ordinarily inefficient process: the selection of a personal injury attorney by a nonlawyer. Corporate lawyers and clients don't need anything like a referral system because, as part of their paying jobs, they interact with all kinds of attorneys and generally have connections that can set them up with the right person for the job.

Your typical Wal-Mart or Wawa cashier hasn't the faintest clue about what to do when they get paralyzed by a drunk truck driver or when their spouse's brain gets blown out by an overdose of Heparin. Most lawyers don't even know to whom they'd turn in the event of a catastrophic injury. The referral system creates an incentive for the initial attorneys not just to half-assedly send a case away, but to diligently choose an appropriate attorney who can get the best result for the client.

Finally, and to me this is the most important function of the referral system, referral fees — specifically large referral fees — encourage attorneys who are not really qualified to handle large matters to refer those matters out to attorneys who are qualified. I cannot tell you the number of times I have been referred a case either because "it's just too big for me" or because "after I filed suit, the defense attorneys went nuclear on me." That is a good thing; attorneys should have no hesitation to radio SOS when the waters get rough. Eliminating referral fees gives them an incentive to hold on to these cases and "do their best," which is frequently not in the client's best interest.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The "Truck Injury Lawyer Blog" points us to a new development in the world of trucking accidents:

In his recent article, Premiums Fall 10% to 50% As New Firms Enter Market, Frederick Kiel describes the effect that the drop in premiums has on the trucking companies, as these new insurance companies are offering across the board rates to trucking companies in an effort to compete for their business. ...

These new insurance companies are offering low premiums in an effort to gain new business, a trend that has been seen intermittently since the 1980s. Perhaps now is the time to look at the minimum insurance required to be carried by tractor trailer companies. Congress set the minimum rates back in 1984 at $750,000 for some companies with most being required to carry $1,000,000. Inflation and time have eroded the value of the coverage. Medical bills and the costs associated with catastrophic injuries have risen dramatically. Today, in a catastrophic case, the minimum limits are paid and quickly spent. The injured are then left for the taxpayer to pay for through medicaid or some other assistance program.

$1 million frequently will not cover the damages in a catastrophic personal injury case, particularly not where there will be extensive continuing medical treatment. $1 million also frequently does not cover wrongful death damages, and it usually will not cover an accident where multiple people have catastrophic injuries.

although the article does not address it, an important point to keep in mind here is how much safer trucking these days should be given the depth and breadth real-time monitoring available to trucking companies. Traffic, weather, and driver alertness -- down to excruciatingly minor details -- are all readily apparent in real-time to fleet managers, thereby eliminating the bulk of the systematic risks faced by truckers that cause major motor vehicle accidents.

If trucking companies used this technology appropriately -- rather than using it solely to run their drivers right up to (and frequently beyond) the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulation limits -- and purchased adequate insurance, including insurance with coverage for each plaintiff, rather than the accident as a whole, the costs and financial risk of trucking would be dramatically reduced.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you haven't been following, Victoria Pynchon at the Settle It Now Negotiation Blog and I have been having a running discussion about The Settlement Unicorn, which I originally defined as follows:

I've heard of a mythical beast, which I'll call The Unicorn Settlement, where two hostile parties on the verge of a lawsuit get lawyers, almost file suit, and then, through deft representation, settle their differences peacefully and move on.

Let me exclude from The Unicorn a particular class of dispute, where two businesses with an ongoing relationship have a big dispute. I exclude that because, while I've seen many such disputes resolved pre-litigation, it has always been in the context of an ongoing relationship the value of which exceeds the value of the dispute. So I don't call that a "settlement of a case," I call it a "continuation of a business relationship."

Victoria most recently gave an example in a medical malpractice case, which caused me to move the goal posts:

Thus, when the parties agreed to mediate, there was likely $40-60,000 "on the table," which could either be used to help settle the case or could be thrown away on experts. As noted above, that sum alone -- putting aside attorneys' fees and all the other costs and issues -- likely represented between one quarter and one half of the eventual settlement value, and the lawyers, whom I am guessing were experienced in medical malpractice, both deserve credit for recognizing this economic waste.

But that's why I just can't verify this as an actual sighting of the mighty unicorn. To me, it's analytically similar to my initial example of two businesses who resolve their dispute not because they really reach an agreement, but because the cost of the dispute is less than the value of their continuing relationship. The equation above doesn't work in a wrongful death or birth injury case. It frequently doesn't apply in cases worth more than $250,000 and virtually never applies to cases worth more than $500,000.

So Victoria commented:

On to the main point, isn't there ALWAYS some "external" factor that brings litigating parties to the table?

Which external factors do you want to rule out for our poor unicorn?

I deftly didn't answer for several days [sorry, Vickie]. Let me clarify: my biggest issue with her example was my suspicion that the final settlement didn't substantially exceed the cost of continued litigation. As such, it doesn't really look like a genuine desire to settle, it looks like a cost-avoidance measure with a little bit of personal understanding (the scar) involved.

That's all well and good, and covers a lot of cases, but it's not what I'm looking for and what I think needs more consideration. What I'm looking for is a settlement reached, for substantial money, because the lawyers sat down, considered the case, and came to an agreement on its value.

The frustratingly inefficient process that nags at me is this: after my investigation of a case, I have a good idea of three different numbers:

1. the highest reasonable verdict value of the case;
2. the likely settlement / verdict value;
3. the lowest reasonable successful resolution.

Unspoken there is #4, a defense verdict / abandoning the case, which I guess you could say is a consideration, except that, given how I'm largely in the business of contingent fee cases, I'm not in the business of taking cases I think can't win. It's always a concern, but not for settlement: if I settle a case, I settle it at a "win" amount. Otherwise I go for #1 and don't look back.

Here's the frustrating part. Every insurer is different, as is every defense attorney, and certainly every defendant, and there are disincentives for all of them (respectively bureaucratic, financial, and emotional disincentives) not to settle early. And even though I've done defense work, I know I just don't get how this adjuster works, how this case is evaluated, how my client is lying, blah, blah blah.

But at some point the adjuster, lawyer and/or client will start throwing numbers around in their head. At least along the lawyers, the #2 numbers usually aren't that far apart, and will be within half (plus or minus) of what a judge / mediator would put on it for settlement purposes.

Time after time, I litigate a case for months / years, for which I've known #2, and after all that time and money, no one knows any more than when they started. Some defense lawyers will, after the close of discovery, start talking settlement. Others refuse to discuss until jury selection.

Now, in some circumstances, such litigation is inevitable. Take a birth injury (hypoxia) / medical malpractice case. The potential damages are enormous, and heavily dependent upon developmental / life care / economic assumptions. There's always a thrombophilia defense, there's always some Chair-of-Whatever who can describe how a fetal strip says the opposite of what it actually does. So we'll need to litigate, depose the doctors, find the experts, wave to the insurance surveillance, and get the whole thing ready for trial before appropriate numbers are offered.

On others, it's just plain silly. Here's a hypothetical: industrial product failed, 54yo male client spent 16 days in the hospital, lost $80,000 in wages while recovering in physical therapy for months, now earns $15,000 less per year at a crummier job, has a recurring severe pain in legs, and can't engage in normal physical recreation anymore. He'll need continuing care plus a couple surgeries.

There are thousands of cases like that every year, more than enough to get a contemporary sense of "what they're worth."

Months of discovery will create dozens of copies of his medical records, find out he had three workplace safety violations in the past 15 years (none related to the machine), and reveal the company has had two other incidents with this same product, but no smoking guns.

Just before trial, we're exactly where we started, except the insurance company is poorer $50,000-$150,000 in legal fees and experts, I've put out $20,000-50,000 in costs and experts, and my client has gone more than a year since filing suit living off loans from family to pay off the massive credit card debt and home equity loans they took on immediately after the accident.

Why did we mess around all that time? The defense lawyers would have known proving liability wouldn't be that hard for me, and that neither me nor my firm ever shows up to trial unprepared. All of their discovery was, at best, a half-hearted fishing expedition. The bulk of what they did was force me to "prove" things that should have been beyond any genuine dispute. Why couldn't we get this done sooner?

Victoria, do you have any examples of two parties sitting down, before largely completing litigation, and wrapping up a case for substantially more than nuisance / cost of suit? If so, what brought them to the table?

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks (1)
• Share Link

From the Middle District of Pennsylvania:

In Pennsylvania, an individual who sustains injury in a motor vehicle collision that is aggravated by subsequent medical negligence may recover damages for both injuries either from the driver exclusively or from the driver and the negligent medical practitioner in tandem. See RESTATEMENT (SECOND) TORTS § 457 (s1965) [hereinafter "RESTATEMENT"]; Smialek v. Chrysler Motors Corp., 290 Pa. Super. 496, 434 A.2d 1253, 1258 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1981) (stating that "the original tortfeasor[ in an automobile collision] is . . . fully responsible . . . for the negligent manner in which a physician or surgeon treats the case"). The plaintiff may recover all damages solely from the negligent driver because subsequent faulty treatment is deemed to be a foreseeable consequence of the automobile accidence. See RESTATEMENT § 457 cmt. a ("[D]amages assessable against [a negligent driver] include not only the injury originally caused by the [driver's] negligence but also the harm resulting from the manner in which the medical, surgical, or hospital services are rendered"); Boggavarapu v. Ponist, 518 Pa. 162, 542 A.2d 516, 517 (Pa. 1988).

However, if the plaintiff sues both the driver and the physician, liability should be allocated according to each tortfeasor's separate negligence. 1 See Frazier v. Harley Davidson Motor Co., 109 F.R.D. 293, 295-96 (W.D. Pa. 1985) (stating that negligent motorists and subsequently negligent physicians commit separately identifiable acts of negligent); Smith v. Pulcinella, 440 Pa. Super. 525, 656 A.2d 494, 497 (Pa. Super Ct. 1995); Harka v. Nabati, 337 Pa. Super. 617, 487 A.2d 432, 434 (Pa. Super Ct. 1985) (quoting Voyles v. Corwin, 295 Pa. Super. 126, 441 A.2d 381, 383 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1982)) ("[T]o the extent that the acts of the original tortfeasor and those of the physician are capable of separation, the damages should be apportioned accordingly."). The court determines as a matter of law whether injuries are capable of apportionment; however, the jury determines the value of the claim against each defendant. Voyles, 441 A.2d at 383.

Trout v. Milton S. Hershey Med. Ctr., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 65553 (emphasis added).

If the medical malpractice causes a catastrophic injury, there are very few situations in which you would want to proceed only against the car driver, not least because they likely have far less available insurance than the medical provider. Indeed, in this case the plaintiff's leg became necrotic and had to be amputated allegedly due to medical malpractice, an injury that, when combined with the accident itself, likely exceeds the insurance coverage of most drivers.

Then again, if neither the auto accident nor the medical malpractice was catastrophic, and the damages are within the coverage limits, the action can be substantially simplified by proceeding only against the car driver. You will still need expert medical testimony, but you might not get nearly the same fight as you would going against the medical provider directly. You might also have more settlement leverage against the car driver's insurance company because they run the risk of eating all of the damages at trial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

If you're looking for contact information, please go to my Contact page.

The Beasley Firm's main website also profiles our Areas of Expertise.

The Beasley Firm typically represents plaintiffs in civil litigation and trials in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Delaware and, on occasion, Washington, DC, and New York City. We take difficult plaintiffs' cases and see them all the way through investigation, filing, pleadings, discovery and trial, and through appeal and re-trial, too.

The Beasley Firm is a full-service civil litigation and trial law firm with a forty-year history of excellence. Our reputation as trial lawyers is unparalleled, with multiple record-setting verdicts, and the record (held by the founder) for million-dollar verdicts by a single attorney. Slade McLaughlin and I set a new verdict record -- for punitive damages in a Pennsylvania medical malpractice case -- in May of 2008.

The Beasley Firm is unique in that it has many attorneys who specialize in particular areas like automobile accidents or medical malpractice, multiple appellate attorneys, and many general practitioners who focus on cases that don't fit the normal pattern, all under one roof that retains the nimble energy of a boutique firm where everyone knows each other and bounces ideas off one another. We adapt as the case demands; if a case needs a dozen attorneys and assistants, it gets them.

Most firms put up lists of the types of cases they work on; it's hard to do that for us. In the past year we've worked on automobile accidents, aviation accidents, breach of contract breach of fiduciary duty, business torts, civil rights, commercial litigation, copyright infringement, defamation, dram shop, employment discrimination, fraud, insurance coverage / bad faith denials, medical malpractice, private equity / shareholder disputes, personal injury, product liability, wrongful death, and wrongful use of civil proceedings / abuse of process cases.

We use alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation frequently and have experience in commercial arbitration, including large, complex commercial disputes.

My practice is largely unlimited -- at any given time, I generally have multiple cases representing people who have been physically injured in accidents or through medical malpractice, and multiple cases representing people and businesses who have been financially injured through breaches of contract, breaches of fiduciary duty, or downright fraud.

If you think you have a case, please contact our offices for a case review. We don't charge to review cases and we generally represent plaintiffs on a contingent fee, where our fee depends upon our success. Please see the Contact page for contact info.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link