On The Issue of Tart Refarm

[BAREister]

The BARE just read Fleck's foaming-at-the-mouth rant against class action lawyers now leveling their guns at Wall Street FURms.

 

HRFF is incredulous. Fleck was dourly predicting the looming litigation bubble vs those same FURms long ago.

 

Now, after years of ranting against excesses on the Street he's whining like a run-of-the-mill CEO caught with his hands in the corporate cookie jar about class action litigation and pleading FUR tort "reform".

 

Here's what he says - see link above on p. 2 of this thread.

 

"But the behavior of class-action lawyers has gotten out of control. Their legalized blackmail has produced an incremental cost of business that does no one in this country any good.

 

We would be better able to compete in the tough global business environment if we could restore order to our out-of-control tort system. Perhaps this goal can be attained, now that the Republicans have the Oval Office and both houses of Congress. We just need to see some regulations put in place to help restore ethics and honesty to the business and legal arena. Unless checked, the army of class-action lawyers poised to pounce on Wall Street and corporate America will just boost its war chest for ASSaults to come."

 

what UDDER tripe! Think it sounds "reasonable"? "Reform"??? This would not be "reform" butt what HRFF irreverently calls "DEform"!

 

Here's why:

 

FURst, diss>>closure:

 

The BARE is, FURst and FURmost, a lawyer. He comes from a long line of 'em and he was trained ass one, and is, still, licensed ass one, albeit on "inactive" status, and, FURther, he wuz, once, a lead plaintiff in a clASS ? action against a corporation.

 

He tends to be a bit biased when the whole subject of tort reFURm is raised. The arguments against it are tenuous enough when it's couched in UDDER contexts, such as malpractice litigation. They're almost invariably idiotic when leveled in the context of clASS ? action, heavily charged with emotion, pregnant with usage of vicious terms like "blackmail" and "unethical". It's (tort "reform", that is) usually, but not always, championed by miscreants, usually corporate types, or those who can profit from a dearth of litigation or by those who, voicing sympathy, thereby ingratiate themselves with the contemplated or real targets of the tort litigation being calumnied. Some just hate lawyers going after investment houses in a huge way or corporations. Some just don't like lawyers gumming up the business world. Some just hate lawyers, period. People generally resent those they HAVE to depend upon. Sooner or later, nearly everybody has to see a lawyer about SOMETHING or another.

More recently it's been doctors howling FUR tort reFURm, and, especially, doctors from BARE's home state, or, rather, the one he was born in. (This leaves ASSide ? the notion of doctors ass miscreants altogether - over 100,000 Americans perish in hospitals due to their ineptitude alone, every year it is alleged - by UDDER doctors, BTW) One of his childhood acquaintances he knows well was recently pictured in TIME and the NYT blaming tort liability FUR the price gouging by still more executives of his peers in the medical malpractice insurance sector via obscene rate hikes which has driven lots of those colleagues out of state. It's portfolio losses on Wall St that has animated these increases, suspects HRFF, SNOT any explosion in jury awards.

Either that or plain greed or both.

 

Fleck's out of his mind. What's he trying to do? His answer would benefit and please no end the veritable legions of Wall St wrongdoers who, now, staring at well deserved legal exposure, seek to exculpate themselves in the guise of "reform".

 

He says it drives up the cost of business! It hampers competitiveness. So what does he propose in lieu thereof? More regulation! LMAZZOFF

 

If the 1990's showed us anything it demonstrated that, sans a vigorous enFURcement arm (see discussion of Mr. Spitzer below by way of ex.) corporate America will subvert or ignore entirely regulation if the larger economic milieu incentivises it.

Mr. Fleckenstein's "solution" isn't a "solution" and he is hopelessly vague in his contemplated panacea, silent as to details altogether and indulging in the most sweeping generalization as to objective(s). "just need" indeed!

 

This is fairly typical, the complainant hASS, ostensibly, only vague ideas of a proxy for the perceived evils of the current system. The devil is in the details Mr Fleckenstein!!! Dost thou have ANY details to suggest if your goal is realized?

 

Just curious.

 

"Reform", my KEISTER!!! thunders? The BARE. This isn't REFORM you propose Mr Fleckenstein - with your thinly-veiled contempt for lawyers now strategizing to attack, it would be gutting the law when it's about to be used the way it was intended on well-deserving targets. This isn't "blackmail". It's the system working. Seems everyone else is allowed to push the envelope of their occupation for profit except the legal profession? IS this even pushing the envelope or anything close to it? BLACKMAIL? If the targets of this group of attorneys hadn't done anything wrong they'd have nothing to fear. NOTHING.

 

Hasn't done anybody any good? LMAZZOFF It's done a lot of plaintiffs "good". It's scared the bejesus out of some into SNOT doing things they'd otherwise do in a NY minute if they thought they'd get away with it.

 

Perhaps one can only expect a hedge fund Wall St guy like Fleck to look at the world in the terms of facilitating international competitiveness or reducing "the costs of doing business" - costs generated by observing legal niceties or at least avoiding class action exposure, and placing them above, or rather, in lie thereof of our present legal system's current configuration in arguing for what would, were his ideas to see full fruition, effectively amount to it's evisceration ass some troubling annoyance and expensive irritant. Yes, BARE means, essentially, the evisceration of this type of (class action) legal exposure. He posits in it's place ass "all" we "need" is "regulations put in place to help restore ethics and honesty to the business and legal arena."

They're not observing the current regulations on Wall St or in boardrooms NOW Mr Fleckenstein, yet you demand MORE. (See discussion of investigations now under way per Martin Weiss, below by way of example.)

And cease, please this ASSinine notion of class action litigation being "unethical". It isn't. Nothing close. Corporate types, it's most? frequent target, characteristically and underhandedly cry 'foul' when in it's sights. Were it unethical these cases would have no tenure in legal venues. The attorneys would be disbarred. Neither is happening. The courts have to review and AUTHORIZE EACH class action, gentle readers. Each and every class action that comes to conclusion hASS been vetted by the JUDICIARY. Given this, it's hard to accept the notion that these lawsuits, or the cotorie of specialists who bring many of them, are, somehow, as Fleck clearly suggests, indulging in "blackmail" or "unethical".

 

FURther HRFF hass this VAGUE memory of legislation pASSed in the mid-1990's in the name of tort reform/class action reform that now is viewed as greatly expediting the Bubble. That later created a counter-veiling regulatory backlash - ass would Fleck's notions if implemented, in the opinion of HRFF, anyway.

 

These pieties of "needed" "reform", this whining, and carping are going to increase in volume as the civil side of legal practice tightens its noose around Wall Street's neck.

 

Curiously, there is no mention made by you, Mr Fleckenstein of what Mr Martin Weiss alleges: namely 47 sepearate probes, "major" ass he calls them "into gross violations of investor trust at thenation's largest investment brokerages...And they are lamost ready to make absolutely EXPLOSIVE revelations about the most gross, disgusting, CONTEMPTIBLE violations of investor trust, yet." says Mr Martin Weiss in his most recent mASS ? mailing. What would your notions of neutering class action litigationat least against Wall St do FUR those miscreants Mr Fleckenstein??? Quite a LOT!!!, suspects The BARE. They must be pleased at/by/with your imprecations! Why?

Well, Mr Weiss continues:

 

"This is the most serious threat to your wealth imaginable."

 

And THEIRS, Mr Fleckenstein! And THEIRS! ESPECIALLY theirs. PARTICULARLY theirs.

 

Hence all this cavil/caterwauling. Wall Street is staring at enormous class action exposure. Fleck's even remarked upon the looming legal spectre and this class action exposure is almost certainly part of what he meant.

 

Class action litigation is about the ONLY remaining remedy on Wall St where the deck isn't hopelessly stacked against the "little guy". Look at what just happened on the CRIMINAL side of the ledger!

 

Think the little guy gets a fair shake in arbitration which he is FURced into?

 

It's about the ONLY remedy that will bring REAL justice and punishment to wrongdoers. There's simply ENORMOUS exposure there. Now that this SACRED COW is about to have it's OX GORED we are subjected to the spectacle of the whining of the likes of, at least heretoFUR, such harsh Wall St critics ass Mr Fleckenstein?

 

We saw the slap on the wrist that Mr Spitzer gave Wall St. The message was clear - straighten up and fly right - we're only going to administer a spanking.

 

If the prosecutors are going to wink at criminal liability, civil liability is the only recourse of any meaningful consequence. Mr. Fleckenstein would thwart that given HIS druthers. Or our president, who,probably, doesn't dare propose systemic tort "reform" as corporate America would have it, anyway, and, in so doing, thereby take on the ABA, at least not beyond the medical malpractice arena, and there he complains, with some justification about absurd damages for "pain and suffering" - the so-called "puni's".

 

This notion of eviscerating class action is, probably, DOA on arrival in the Senate, should it ever get out of the House in the FURst place, anyway, Fleck! You're SNOT going to get your regulations, either, not from a Republican Congress and President! Unless Wall St blackmails Congress and buffaloes it into pASSing such legislation saying class action will destroy it.

 

Should THAT happen, the little guy will get shafted yet again, and the powerful will wriggle free.

[SkiddMarket]

Never Mind. Let's just all be happy.

 

 

SkiddMarket, M.D.

[DrStool]

The issue of tort reform deserves its own thread, which I will be happy to create. Given that it is related to the economy and markets, I'll put it in LOB.

 

I'm with the lawyers on this. Corporations, especially, especially insurance companies, have no morals and will screw everyone every chance they get, even with the threat of the big stick. Can you imagine what it would be like without the big stick.

 

I difinitely fele bad for the good docs on this one, but the lawyers aren't the enemy. Rapacious corporations and insurance companies are. It was the insurance companies' mismangement of their investments, not the cost of lawsuits, which has caused rates to soar.

 

You absolutely cannot trust your insurance company in the case of a major claim, at a time when you might need them most. They'll play the small claims. That's just marketing. Millions of happy customers, right. But when a big one comes along, they will find a way out.

[Slothrop]

So called free market capitalists have a bizarrre double-standard on this subject. It's WRONG for trial lawyers to want money, but it's the RIGHT motive for all other forms of human endeavor.

 

This is hypocrisy.

 

One Democratic candidate for President, North Carolina Senator John Edwards, is a trial lawyer who won big money for his clients vs. corporations.

 

The more Edwards becomes visible, the more likely we are to hear about this subject up to the next Presidential elections.

 

I look forward to the debate.

[BAREister]

They're trying to welsh on contracts out here in Seattle based corps. At least FUR director's liability.

 

This is how lawyers thrive. The insurer will say our policy excludes acts of fraud, etc. The exec in hot water will say - how can we be guilty if we didn't know of the distortions alleged by the insurance co./class action plaintiff's at the time?

 

It becomes a question of, inter alia, intent and knowledge either actual or constructive and that is an issue FUR the trier of fact, hence trials, hence the need FUR lawyers.

 

Corporate and Wall streat malfeasance will guarantee jobs FUR attorneys for at least anUDDER decade.

[BAREister]

tArt refArm?

 

LUVit, Stool baby!

 

The BARE grew up on a farm.

 

Then he went to work FUR a (law) FURm!

 

HMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm..........

[Guest]

Bare,

 

Why don't you email your post to Fleck, and see if he responds.

[Dustbowl]

Full disclosure: I am a trial lawyer with a small practice here in the dustbowl. I have handled only a few medical practice lawsuits for plaintiffs. I currently represent residents of nursing homes in abuse and neglect cases. I have focused my practice in this area of law for the past 10 years.

 

For anyone wanting the "other side" of the tort reform issue, please read the facts/statistics provided by the ATLA. This is the side of the argument you will not hear from the Bush administration. http://www.atla.org/ConsumerMediaResources...mal/medmal.aspx

[Guest Icky Twerp]

Medical Mal-Practice Tort Reform is a red-herring draped by HMOs and Insurance companies across the trail of higher medical insurance costs that were caused by their bad stock market and hedge fund guesses.

[Dustbowl]

Icky: You hit the nail on the head. That is the bottom line. We faced this same assault in the early eighties after the insurance companies suffered huge investment losses. This time, we also have a standard-bearer in the White House pushing the agenda. In the fact sheets you will see where G.W. Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car over a minor accident involving one of his daughters. Nobody was injured, but that did not stop G.W. from pursuing his right in court did it?

 

1999

Year President Bush sued Enterprise Rent-A-Car over a minor auto accident involving a car his daughter Jenna was driving in which no one was hurt. The accident was so minor that police weren't even called to the scene. Lawyers familiar with Texas insurance law said the suit probably was unnecessary because Bush's insurance most likely would have covered the costs.

 

In my experience, the other guy's lawsuit is always frivolous but, my lawsuit is always legitimate. Human nature I guess.

[SkiddMarket]

My turn. I'm a practicing physician in Rural Georgia. Malpractice rates for most specialties are rising 20%/year. This is the second year of the rise. Savannah Georgia has just lost their premier cardiothoracic surgeon. Packed up and moved to a state with tort reform ($200K/year premiums). We can't find a neurosurgeon to come to our area- malpractice insurance rates are too high. Our community hospital has already lost a General Surgeon and a Plastic surgeon- left the state. One of our longest practicing GP's just shut down his practice- 40 years without a suit, but wasn't willing to pay $40K/year to work part time. This is just the beginning. MOST radiologists are expecting to stop reading mammograms in the near future. As my friend put it: " I make 8 bucks if I get it right, I lose 3 million if I get it wrong- what would YOU do"). MOST Georgia ob'gyn's have modified their practices- less high risk cases. no high risk cases, or just STOPPING obstetrics completely. The average ob-gyn in the US has been sued 3 times. Yep- that's the median. So much for "standard of care"- if you are an OBGYN, you can expect 3 suits regardless of the quality of your care.

 

Before tort refom for birth injuries in Florida about 8 years ago, there were NO (0) obgyns in S. Florida that took Medicaid. Expectant mothers went to emergency rooms to deliver. It just wasn't worth the malpractice exposure. The Neonatal Birth Injury Law passed soon afterwards. Recently, Las Vegas' only Level 3 trauma center was CLOSED. No doctors were willing to staff it. The legislature passed reform, and it reopened.

 

Personally, I have stopped caring for premature infants due to malpractice exposure. They are referred to a center 60 miles away. I used to enjoy pediatric surgery, but no more. Gave it up 5 years ago at the request of my malpractice carrier who felt it involved too much exposure. By the way- I've been in practice 15 years, never sued, never even had records requested. My rates have doubled in the past 2 years.

 

At this time in Georgia, there is only ONE malpractice carrier remaining. And there is no guarantee they will be staying either. As soon as they leave, either the state will have to fund it, or I'll just have to daytrade full-time.

 

It really isn't a matter of medical incompetence (yes there certainly is, although it is a small percentage) or greedy personal injury lawyers (yes there certainly are, and it is a very large percentage- more like 100%) but it is a matter of simple economics. A doctor computes out his profit, looks at his malpractice insurance bill, and makes a decision whether to renew or not. More and more doctors are just saying no- it's just not financially feasible. There WILL be reform and limits on pain & suffering in all states. Very soon. Or there will be no medical care available in states without it.

 

Oh... and Bearister- Trial lawyers are one of the largest contributors to the Democratic party. The only chance for National tort reform is with a Republican President and Congress. And guess what the new Senate Majority leader does for a living. You guessed it: Cardiothoracic Surgeon. It'll pass. Just watch.

 

SkiddMarket, M.D.

[Dustbowl]

OK Dr. Skiddmarket. You are describing the result of the medical malpractice "crisis" but you are not addressing the cause. There is no explosion in malpractice lawsuits, that is a myth. The result of your premium increases has everything to do with the insurance companies malpractice of its own investments, not any increase in litigation. Look at your malpractice carrier for the answers. I don't disagree with the "crisis", I do disagree with the cause of the crisis as outlined by G.W. and the insurance industry. Again, please refer to the link I cited and see if you can disagree with the facts presented there.

[SkiddMarket]

OK Dr. Skiddmarket. ?You are describing the result of the medical malpractice "crisis" but you are not addressing the cause. There is no explosion in malpractice lawsuits, that is a myth. The result of your premium increases has everything to do with the insurance companies malpractice of its own investments, not any increase in litigation. Look at your malpractice carrier for the answers. ?I don't disagree with the "crisis", I do disagree with the cause of the crisis as outlined by G.W. and the insurance industry. Again, please refer to the link I cited and see if you can disagree with the facts presented there.

I don't care about the cause. It isn't greedy malpractice insurance companies- 3 have already left Georgia completely. They don't want more money. They want to LEAVE. It's not profitable to write the policies. And they left. Only one remains. You want perfect flawless medical care? Sorry, I can't provide it and neither can anyone else. But when exams are $50 and anyone can sue for a million and win, even if there is no fault (juries can do whatever they please), I can't blame a malpractice carrier for running.

 

If the only way to solve the problem is tort reform, then that's what will have to be done. Plain & simple. That is, unless YOU wish to write affordable malpractice policies in Georgia. If so, PM me and I'll get you some business and maybe we can forget this whole reform thing .

[Dustbowl]

Dr. Skiddmarket, If you don't care about the cause, then this discussion seems closed. In my earlier posts, I never sniped you or any other doctor, can you say the same? You are the one suffering the "malpratice crisis" at the hands of your malpractice carrier. You are being spoofed, my friend.

[SkiddMarket]

Counselor Dustbowl. In Georgia, there are NO carriers writing policies to Nursing Homes right now. Zero. Many of them are insuring in Capive Protected Cell Products in Bermuda and the Caymans. That's all that is left. I read your Bar propaganda. But what I see more of is " HAVE YOU BEEN INJURED DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE OF OTHERS???? IF SO, CALL JOE SHMOE, ESQ. AND DEMAND YOUR RIGHTS" played over and over on TV. On Billboards. And on both covers of every phone book in the state. It's a racket. And it's in it's last days.

 

I've already been to Atlanta for the Doctor's Rally. I am in close contact with all my legislators, and I donated a ton of money to winning campaigns. The cause of the crisis doesn't matter to me at all. Georgia has the first Republican Governor since Reconstruction, and tort reform is high on his list. I'll shed a tear for the personal injury attorneys later.