clements auto insurance
Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog
Published By Miller & Zois
- The "Framing" of Personal Injury Lawyers and Tort Reform
I just finished George Lakoff’s book, Don't Think of an Elephant! Know Your Values and Frame the Debate. Channeling my inner Joe Biden, I loved the book; I hated the book.
I hated the book because as much as Lakoff obviously tried to fight it, he does too much of the “no reasonable person could think this way unless they were being manipulated” spiel. It is just too condescending and partisan for my tastes, which I think takes away from some of the luster of the book for me.
A topic near and dear to my heart, tort reform, is the classic example. Lakoff writes (on page 30 for those of you following along at home) that conservatives are not focused on tort reform because of their disdain for the volume of lawsuits, but because they want to take money out the coffers of progressives by taking away the attorneys’ fees available to trial lawyers. Obviously, medical malpractice and accident lawyers generally contribute heavily to progressive candidates.
The thought had never occurred to me that tort reform is a back door to bleed progressive causes and I’m sure there is some truth to it. But the notion that this is the primary source of the motivation for tort reform among conservative thinkers ignores the magnitude of the animosity in many circles of our society – including people smarter than me – with frivolous lawsuits and, to a lesser extent, large jury verdicts.
This problem is compounded by the repeating of verdicts that are completely taken out of context (the McDonald’s verdict), fabricated (the Stella Awards), or simply rare. Compounding this problem further is the fact that celebrities tend to use lawsuits as the resolution mechanism of first choice, leading Americans to assume that these de facto aliens are a microcosm of our country.
Lakoff suggests that trial lawyers need to frame the issues differently. Consumer protection and personal injury trial lawyers should be framed as public protection lawyers. Under this frame, when tort law tries to put a cap on non-economic damages, they are taking away the constitutional right of juries to decide justice. Large settlements and verdicts result in greater public safety because the impact of accident, malpractice and, most importantly in this context, products liability cases go beyond the case at hand and are a form of public protection law.
The problem goes beyond framing, though, because the real issue in the tort reform battle is that there are not enough people to make the frames. Trial lawyers are the wrong messengers. Trial lawyer lobbyists? Worse. So who is left?
The fuel that fills the tort reform train is that everyone on the ride has never suffered a catastrophic injury as the result of the negligence or willful disregard for their safety (typically consumer or med mal context) of someone else. Those folks who have suffered a catastrophic injury often do come forward and make compelling witnesses for the unfairness of many tort reforms, most notably caps on noneconomic damages. But most people who have suffered a grave injury have enough to deal with, without having to the carry the anti-tort reform ball. So that leaves a few compelling proponents against a lot of people who think that their insurance costs and what they pay for drugs and medical devices are due to greedy personal injury lawyers and their clients. And this is a hard obstacle to overcome.
- Seroquel Diabetes Lawyer: Attorneys for Seroquel Induced Type 2 Diabetes
There has been evidence since 2002 that drugs in Seroquel’s class caused a 3.34 times greater risk of diabetes than other antipsychotic drugs (which is what Seroquel is supposed to be prescribed for in the first place). In September 2003, the FDA began mandating Seroquel patients are at great risk for type 2 diabetes.
The Seroquel diabetes class action lawsuit alleges that Seroquel’s manufacturer knew that Seroquel caused a high occurrence of diabetes, but failed to adequately warn doctors or patients of the risk. As is often the case, the other countries' version of the FDA required a more explict warning about the risk of type 2 diabetes with Seroquel. The Japanese warning specifically informing doctors of the need to monitor Seroquel patients. The Japanese label also indicates that Seroquel is contraindicated for use in patients with diabetes or a history of diabetes. In other words, Seroquel's manufacturer felt comfortable providing doctors and Seroquel patients in the United States less information than Japanese Seroquel patients were afforded. Why? Two words: market share. The more bad information about Seroquel that was made available, the less prescriptions - particularly the off-market prescriptions for Seroquel which is where the real money is in Seroquel sales.
There is a nationwide MDL Seroquel lass action lawsuit pending in Florida. Many plaintiffs' lawyers believe that a settlement in the Seroquel class action lawsuits could be coming down the pike although no one knows exactly when (or even if) such a Seroquel settlement might occur. If you think you may have a Seroquel type 2 diabetes case and would like to be included in the Seroquel class action, you can call one of our Seroquel class action lawyers for a free consultation at 800-553-8082 or click here for a free online Seroquel consultation.
- Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund's Finance Companies Take a Hit
The Baltimore Sun reports today that Maryland Insurance Commissioner Ralph S. Tyler ordered nine premium finance companies - companies that finance the Maryland Automobile Insurance Fund premiums, which consumers are still required to pay in full - to stop charging ridiculously high finance charges. Two of these finance companies also must refund money to consumers because, incredibly, they charged interest on policies that were never issued. The Baltimore Sun article suggests this will save MAIF’s customers about $100 a year.
These finance companies exist due to a quirk in the law that requires MAIF to make customers pay in full for their premiums. Since most consumers cannot afford this, these drivers turn to predatory lending companies. Everyone from MAIF itself to Ralph Tyler has argued that MAIF should allow its insured drivers to pay premiums over time, like virtually all of the rest of us.
Unfortunately, MAIF drivers, who typically have bad driving records and/or bad credit histories, have no lobbyists in Annapolis. MAIF’s competitors (particularly, as this blog discusses, State Auto) and these finance companies do have lobbyists, which is why this nonsense has been allowed to continue. Hopefully, 2009 is the year that the Maryland legislature finally gets its act together and gets rid of this nonsense.
Related Posts:
Private Insurers Claim They Can't Compete with MAIF 9/2/08
Whose Your Daddy? Do MAIF Lawyers Work for Client or for MAIF 5/8/07
Fraud at MAIF: 1/16/06
- Class Action Lawyers Look at the Spiriva HandiHaler
Our lawyers are now investigating potential Spiriva HandiHaler lawsuits after the Journal of the American Medical Association, underscoring long held concerns, reported that Spiriva HandiHaler users may face increased risk of heart attacks or strokes and other cardiac problems.
The Spiriva HandiHaler (generic: tiotropium bromide inhalation powder) is an inhaler drug used by millions of people with emphysema and bronchitis. The Spiriva HandiHaler was approved in 2004. Along with its cousin Atrovent, which has been around for over 10 years, the Spiriva inhaler is used once or more daily to relax muscles and open airways in a patient’s lungs for patients with emphysema and chronic bronchitis (which are conditions under the umbrella of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease - COPD).
All indications are that both of these products – Spiriva and Atrovent - are efficacious for the purpose of opening the patient’s lungs and facilitating breathing. This new study, however, raised grave concerns that these inhalers could be associated with potentially fatal cardiac conditions. The study looked at other drug trials and found that people taking Spiriva or Atrovent had a 58% hig