Overlawyered letters

I am a physician in Nevada, and am active in the fight for tort reform in our small state. There are three competing initiatives on the Nevada ballot of intense interest:

Question 3, which promotes California-type malpractice liability caps, sponsored by physicians and businesses;

Question 4, sponsored in a hidden fashion by the trial attorneys, which purports to reduce everyone’s auto insurance rates, when in fact it stealthily undoes any past and future tort reform by solidifying itself as a state constitutional amendment to prohibit caps;

Question 5, another constitutional amendment, also sponsored by the trial attorneys, which deceptively purports to limit frivolous lawsuits. Its real purpose is the following provision, taken from the description provided by the Nevada Secretary of State: "The amendment also voids any changes made to Nevada law between January 1, 2004, and December 1, 2006, that decrease the dollar amount of damages persons may recover for losses and harm caused to them as a result of the negligent or wrongful conduct of another person [thus nullifying recent medical malpractice reform]. The amendment does not prohibit the Legislature from: (1) increasing the amount of monetary damages a person may recover caused by the negligent or wrongful conduct of another; or (2) repealing laws which limit damages. Any other changes to such laws are deemed void."

It should be clear that the last-named clause is very dangerous not only to Nevada doctors but also to other defendants both in Nevada and in the rest of the country, especially since trial lawyers can sometimes obtain venue in Nevada for cases that may have arisen elsewhere. A provision permanently banning legislative correction of liability excesses will make Nevada the next “judicial hellhole”­ on steroids. The problem is that few realize just how dangerous this proposal is. -- Donald C. Mohs, Jr., MD, Las Vegas, Nevada

For more on the Nevada initiatives, see my Wall Street Journal piece from Friday -- W.O.

Posted by Walter Olson at 11:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

The late Christopher Reeve did more for medicine than promote spinal cord research; he shed new light on a problem than many suffer from. As CNN.com put it, “In the last week, Reeve had developed a serious systemic infection from a pressure wound, a common complication for people living with paralysis.”

I am well aware that pressure wounds develop in people who lack sufficient mobility, and yet suing medical professionals for not preventing pressure wounds is a growing source of income for trial lawyers. I have suffered through many a lecture from representatives of the legal industry who insist that pressure wounds are due to neglect.

Mr. Reeve’s death sheds light on the fact that fatal pressure wounds can develop in people with insufficient mobility, regardless of the attention and resources dedicated to the patient. One hopes this revelation will inhibit trial lawyers from devastating medical professionals who care for the vast number of immobile patients who develop serious and sometimes fatal pressure wounds. -- Dr. Steve Farmer, Upper Sandusky, Ohio

"Pressure wounds" is the medical term for what lay persons often call bedsores. USA Today, Oct. 24, has more on this issue -- W.O.

Posted by Walter Olson at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (4) | TrackBacks (1)

Regarding the mother in Scotland who is suing the British Ministry of Defence over her soldier son's death in Iraq (Aug. 25): I was in a helicopter crash in Viet Nam. Equipment failure, not related to the enemy. Left me with a broken back and assorted other things. Silly me, I just assumed that everybody thought that going off to war was a risky thing to do. -- S.W. Bondurant, Grenada, Miss.

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (2)

Thank you for covering DirecTV's slash-and-burn legal efforts to rid the world of so-called "pirate devices" (Apr. 30). There was a major favorable development in June, when the Eleventh Circuit federal appeals court ruled that DirecTV could not sue consumers for "mere possession" of devices capable of intercepting their signal. However, DTV is still waging its campaign as it has done for the last three years. In a number of states, customers have struck back with RICO suits against the company.

Readers can learn more about this issue by visiting the site directvdefense.org, run by the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the Stanford Center for Internet & Society Cyberlaw Clinic. There also is a forum at wumarkus.com that has been of great help to all involved in this battle, and which includes dockets and material helpful in defending a case; both lawyers and defendants participate.

I am among those targeted and unfortunately it has cost me tons of money to defend myself in federal court. -- name withheld by request, Allentown, Pa.

Posted by Walter Olson at 10:35 PM | Permalink | TrackBacks (2)