Capitol Fax.com - Your Illinois News Radar

Putting a “human face” on tort reform

Posted in:

Illinois

For the second time in as many weeks, Democratic House Speaker Michael Madigan summoned the entire Illinois House for a daylong hearing that put the spotlight on business-friendly measures sought by Republican Gov. Bruce Rauner.

Rauner has joined the national push for what’s known in political circles as tort reform — setting geographic limits on lawsuits to stop trial lawyers from shopping for venues, restricting medical expense calculations to include amounts paid rather than billed, and allowing defendants to spread their liability to other parties. The idea is to limit multimillion-dollar legal judgments in civil lawsuits.

Madigan’s hearing put a human face on what those changes would mean, with lawmakers hearing testimony from nearly a dozen victims of medical malpractice and corporate negligence who told stories of botched diagnoses, mishandled pregnancies and a deadly road collision. […]

Noticeably excluded from the hearing were representatives from the business community, who were left to air their views at a sparsely attended news conference in a basement room at the Capitol.

“There are two sides to civil justice reform, not just what you’re seeing up on the House floor today,” said Todd Maisch, president of the Illinois Chamber of Commerce. “Hopefully, we’ll get, I’ll get, a chance to go ahead and make our case to the House and the full legislature in support of the governor’s agenda.”

* Illinois Public Radio…

Rauner, a Republican, also wants a constitutional amendment in 2018 capping what he broadly phrases “unreasonable damages.”

Elizabeth Sauter is the widow of state police trooper James Sauter, who was in his squad car on the shoulder of I-294 when a truck driver — who’d logged too many hours behind the wheel — fell asleep. The semi crossed over lanes of traffic, and caused a fiery crash.

“Anyone thinking about voting yes to a bill that would put a cap on civil wrongful death lawsuits in the state of Illinois would also be voting yes to killing more innocent civilians,” Elizabeth Sauter told members of the House. “Putting a cap on penalizing these companies just further encourages them to make careless decisions and continue unsafe practices. Putting a cap on these lawsuits mean you care more about big businesses than you do the citizens that you represent.”

Sauter says the $10.8 million settlement she was awarded a year ago shouldn’t be considered “winning the lottery.” Sauter says it was never about money; she says he’s using it to help pay for a state police memorial park in Springfield. Sauter also says the money is being used to care for her deceased husband’s family and to create a scholarship at his high school. She says she also is on the board of The Chicago 100 Club — an organization that helps families of first responders killed in the line of duty.

* AP…

Jennifer Hill of Huntley told lawmakers doctors delayed performing a C-section during the birth of her oldest son, Ryan, which she said led to profound brain damage. The jury in her family’s civil suit awarded millions, money the mother of three says will ensure her son’s health care is managed.

“The verdict has secured Ryan’s future,” Hill said.

But Indiana resident Crystal Bobbitt, who said her daughter suffers from cerebral palsy, received less than 10 percent of $15 million a jury awarded her family in their malpractice case. She said those responsible for injuring her daughter should pay for her care and that she would rather not have to rely on Medicaid and other sources.

John Pastuovic of the Illinois Civil Justice League, which argues that too much litigation hurts the business environment, said Illinois has become a magnet for plaintiff attorneys across the country because of the “lawsuit-friendly courts.” A report from the group found disparities in case filing and verdict totals between Cook and five southern Illinois counties versus the rest of the state.

* React from Gov. Rauner’s office…

“Illinois has one of the worst lawsuit climates in the country, and reform is essential to address the shortcomings of current laws so we can begin to grow the economy. Reforms are needed to stop venue shopping, clarify liability and to repeal the jury compensation law passed during last year’s veto session. The governor is pleased to see lawmakers discussing reforms to restore sanity in our courts.”

I’m not sure what Rauner saw yesterday, but that wasn’t what happened.

Even so, it’s a sign that the governor isn’t letting this stuff get under his skin.

posted by Rich Miller
Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:34 am

Comments

The governor is suggesting that women are flocking to Illinois to have children with brain damage.

Not a great message for a guy who lashed out at kids with autism on Good Friday.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:39 am
=== repeal the jury compensation law passed during last year’s veto session ===

On the upside, I think we can probably repeal and replace that provision and declare victory on the Turnaround Agenda.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:41 am
Caps on damages do not deter frivolous lawsuits. Almost by definition, a frivolous lawsuit never gets near the damage caps. Moreover, caps on damages do not cut insurance rates. California capped pain and suffering and med mal insurance rates did not move. It was only when California began to cap insurance rates that they went down.

Comment by tominchicago Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 10:49 am
snaps to the Governor for keeping his eyes on the prize.

Comment by Just Me Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:03 am
=== Rauner, a Republican, also wants a constitutional amendment in 2018 capping what he broadly phrases “unreasonable damages.” ===

Another constitutional amendment? Looks like he wants to keep the voters busy. First, he’s got to convince the Dems to vote for his amendments first.

Comment by Norseman Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:24 am
Why should anything get under the Gov’s skin when his default approach to everything is to ignore or be dismissive of anyone that disagrees with him?

Comment by slow down Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:34 am
who said her daughter suffers from cerebral palsy, received less than 10 percent of $15 million a jury awarded her family

Seems like capping lawyer fees is what is needed here…..

Comment by Anonymous Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:40 am
Anon 11:40:

She only received 10% of the jury award because in Indiana, the jury said she was entitled to $15 million in compensation for damages, but the judges under medical malpractice caps are required to reduce the award to the level of the caps.

Sorry for the confusion, willful or otherwise.

Comment by Juvenal Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:47 am
From the article, it looks like the Gov. is not suggesting caps. Unless they shopped venue, it looks like none of the suggested reforms would make a difference in the examples listed.

While I’m not a fan of caps, more restrictions on venue makes sense. Right now we have huge numbers of cases filed in Madison County and Cook County that have nothing to do with the counties. PI guys know they can ring the bell there.

Similarly,joint and several is another area of reform. If a jury finds I caused 10% of the damage why should I pay 90%?

Finally, I’m not sure many understand the other issue. Suppose an ortho bills $2,000 for surgery. She then accepts $1,000 from the patient’s insurer. At that point, patient owes M.D. nothing. Why should patient be allowed to collect $2,000 from a defendant for that surgery? It is fundamentally unfair.

I don’t think I’ve said this very often, but the Gov. is being reasonable here.

Comment by Gooner Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:54 am
@Gooner,
“Suppose an ortho bills $2,000 for surgery. She then accepts $1,000 from the patient’s insurer. At that point, patient owes M.D. nothing. Why should patient be allowed to collect $2,000 from a defendant for that surgery? It is fundamentally unfair.”

That doesn’t make sense. Regardless of the patients method of payment, if they are injured by a physician they should be awarded the damages. Not the insurance company.

Now I’m not suggesting that perhaps the insurance co can’t ‘claw back’ the cost of the procedure, but they are not entitled to the award.

Why are you suggesting otherwise?

Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 12:00 pm
How Ironic,

The reform matters for damages. I think you are assuming the defendant doctor did that $2,000 surgery.

The typical case is a construction accident. Assume a broken arm with a closed reduction. I haven’t looked a file recently but again, for ease of use of numbers, assume $2,000 for that closed reduction. $1,000 is paid for that surgery.

On the verdict form, why should the plaintiff get $2,000 for that surgery when the doctor took $1,000 and the doctor will not be collecting anything more?

Comment by Gooner Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 12:13 pm
@Gooner,

In that instance, if the physician has been paid then it seems odd that the injured party would be receiving the ‘payment’ amount for the surgery.

I thought you were referring to damages for botched surgeries or something.

Comment by How Ironic Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 12:18 pm
I am finding it to be true more often than not that these reactions from the governor’s office on these stories- whether it’s about tort reform, pensions, or transportation- are head scratchers. At best, they’re conjecture about [fill in the blank: past administrations, insider deals, government union bosses, etc.]. At worst, they’re devoid of any semblance of reality.

Comment by PJ Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 12:37 pm
The fact that no businesses that employ middle class Illinois residents were not represented on this panel speaks volumes.

The leadership of the GA does not care to hear their opinion.

With unemployment as high as it is in this state it is a disgrace that everyone in Springfield is not trying to do everything possible to attract employers to Illinois.

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 12:49 pm
So your answer, Lucky Pierre, I’m assuming is to do whatever is necessary to “help” businesses out, whether it hurts others or not. Somebody want to tell me why that attitude is ok? Shouldn’t we be looking at solutions that require something from everyone? What makes a certain group more “special” than another?

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:17 pm
That is a straw man argument Demoralized. What did I say that had anything to do with hurting people?

They don’t even want to hear their opinion about what is would take to expand in Illinois. I think it would help the unemployed if there were more jobs available. I did not realize that was a controversial subject

Comment by Lucky Pierre Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:39 pm
==I think it would help the unemployed if there were more jobs available. ==

Depends on how you do it. If we are following the Govenor’s plan of getting rid of unions and lowering wages and benefits then I don’t think that’s a good plan.

As for tort reform, I would say it also depends on how they accomplish it. If this reform would not allow somebody who, for example, was injured by a medical procedure from getting enough funding to take care of them the rest of their life (if that is what is necessary) then I wouldn’t support it.

Comment by Demoralized Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 1:54 pm
Every tort reform sounds like a great idea until you are the one who gets creamed and then you realize that the playing field has been tilted against you for the benefit of insurance companies. The amazing part is that after getting “reforms” passed that help their bottom line, insurers are not going to do anything to reduce the cost of doing business. But it does look good in CEO Magazine ratings, which is what matters I guess.

Comment by The Way I See It Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 2:10 pm
While Illinois “burns”, Nero J Madigan fiddles with a system that benefits trial lawyers far more than it benefits anyone else.

Comment by dupage dan Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 2:49 pm
I’ll keep my remarks short.

When med-mal was a huge topic in the Metro East, President Bush came and spoke in Collinsville. He had just won reelection two months prior to the speech. His points were simple. Neither he nor Speaker Hastert nor Majority Leader Frist wanted to cap actual damages. The only cap they wanted passed at the federal level was on “pain & suffering”. President Bush laid out the plan, and the documents which were released after his second inauguration supported exactly what he told the crowd that January 5, 2005 day.

If that is used as a template for tort reform, then it stands a much better change of passage.

Comment by Team Sleep Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 2:51 pm
Exactly what would Rauner know about sanity?? (Or honesty, morality, empathy….)
He believes everyone who disagrees with him, or doesn’t acquiesce, is corrupt… Sounds more like delusional paranoia.

Comment by Property of IDOC Wednesday, May 13, 15 @ 11:07 pm