It's May, and The Clock Is Ticking Louder
But it is certain that May begins a new phase for the General Assembly as bills that are still alive have survived one of the two chambers and are now on the other side of the third floor. There are some exceptions, of course, as some major issues haven’t even been injected into the process and won’t be until the governor and Democratic leaders in the House (Michael Madigan) and Senate (Emil Jones) decide to turn them loose (the legislation, not their members).
This week -- Tuesday -- the Senate Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider HB 1798, the trial lawyers' "grief and sorrow" bill. The bill was passed, 63-52 by the House with almost all Democrats voting "aye" and almost all Republicans voting "nay." The roll call can be found here:
The Illinois State Medical Society and the Illinois Hospital Association have taken the leadership role in trying to defeat this bill because it would have a major impact on award payments in wrongful death cases involving doctors and hospitals. (It also would create a new windfall for trial lawyers which, of course, is the objective. It is viewed as a means of neutralizing the 2005 medical liability reforms by creating a NEW un-capped source of compensation for trial lawyers, who get 30 to 40 percent of the money awarded.)
But it's not just doctors and hospitals who are opposed. The Illinois Civil Justice League opposes it, as do the City of Chicago, Cook County, and a wide range of other institutions and interests who understand the economic consequences to patients, insurance holders, taxpayers ... virtually everyone except the trial lawyers.
Sen. John Cullerton, D-Chicago, is the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and although Cullerton is usually fair and open-minded, he has been under intense pressure from Democratic leadership and the trial lawyers to "deliver" for the trial lawyers. He has a chance tomorrow to deliver for the people.
Each member of the Senate Judiciary Committee has an e-mail address and all can be found here. Here are the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
Here are their e-mail addresses:
John Cullerton: john@senatorcullerton.com
Don Harmon: harmon@senatedem.state.il.us
William Haine: haine@senatedem.state.il.us
A.J. Wihelmi: senatorajwilhelmi@sbcglobal.net
Ira Silverstein: silverstein@senatedem.state.il.us
Kwame Raoul: raoul@senatedem.state.ilus
Michael Noland: noland@senatedem.state.il.us
Kirk Dillard: senator@kdillard.com
Dan Cronin: senatorcronin@aol.com
Randy Hultgren: rh@senatorhultgren.com
Matt Murphy: senatormattmurphy@sbcglobal.net
Tell your senator -- better yet, tell ALL the senators -- they should vote "NO" on HB 1798.
**
Two other bills are on the schedule for committee action tomorrow.
The House Elections and Campaign Reform Committee is considering SB 996. This bill would require judges who are elected in a subcircuit to seek retention in that subcircuit, not the circuit at large. ICJL supports this bill.
The House Judiciary Committee is considering SB 486 which would provide for "residual" funds left in a class action distribution fund to be given to selected approved charities after plaintiffs are compensated. There were no "NO" votes in the Senate. However, ICJL opposes this bill. We believe any "left-over" funds should go back to the defendants. Class action lawsuits are not intended to be charitable fund-raisers.
Cross-posted by Ed Murnane at Illinois Justice Blog.
Technorati Tags: SB 1296, Illinois lawsuit abuse, trial lawyer, tort reform, Illinois Civil Justice League
5 comments:
It's May and Murnane's BS is getting thicker!
Ed,
Please enlighten me as to how this "neutralizes the 2005 medical liability reforms by creating a NEW un-capped source of compensation". The Med Society admits in its own legislative alert that these are non-economic damages. Non-economic damages are capped by the 2005 legislation, and therfore these damages would be capped in a med-mal situation. Further, the House Sponsor clarified for legislative intent, on the record, on the floor of the House of Representatives that grief, sorry and mental suffering would be non-economic damages and would therefore be capped in Med mal cases.
Additionally, these are damages that can be considered by a jury after someone is WRONGFULLY KILLED. This isn't a situation where a minor error occured, this is a situation that results in the death of another human being. Also a pet owner can ask for similar damages now for the loss of their pet but a parent can't tell the jury about their grief and sorrow for the loss of their child who was killed by a drunk driver.
Could you please explain again why this is such a bad bill?
Kraig Lounsberry
Kraig,
I think we're talking about wrongful death cases, not med-mal. Med-mal IS capped. Show me where wrongful death cases are capped.
Ed,
Maybe you should read 735 ILCS 5/2-1706.5(a).
You are the one who started talking about how this neutralizes the 2005 law. You are the one who said this creates a new "un-capped" source of compensation. You are are the one who said this would have a major impact on award payments in wrongful death cases involving doctors and hospitals.
Please give me some real world examples of hospitals and doctors that are sued for wrongful death that is not a medical malpractice case.
The docs and hospitals are opposing this because they claim it affects medical malpractice wrongful death actions which they capped two years ago. As usual, your arguments are circular.
You are right about one thing, however, wrongful death is more than med mal. It is drunk drivers killing families, it is wreckless drivers hitting union workers on the side of the road, its motorists not slowing down for emergency vehicles and killing police officers and first responders, it is a steel worker falling 75 feet because of a faulty scaffold and leaving a young family behind.
A family's grief and sorrow is real and should be heard by the jury.
Kraig
I usually skip over ICJL posts on this blog because they read like bad press releases, instead of offering analysis and information.
But this is a new low. This post is essentially a grassroots lobbying post, similar to the kinds of things that are sent out to e-mail lists of people who already support the issue.
I read this blog to get a variety of opinions, some of which I disagree with. But I expect blog-like posts; meaning, I expect some analysis, argument, discussion. I don't expect a sales pitch to engage in grassroots lobbying.
This post is nothing but a sales pitch, and is a big reason why I normally just gloss over anything ICJL posts.
Maybe Rich can set up some restrictions on the use of this site for these kinds of activities?
Post a Comment