I thought that the supreme court has shot down the first one?
But yes, thanks Liberal, about time somebody gave a concrete answer.
In other words, you’re full of shit
We’re not debating the number of freedoms for illegal immigrants, but your claim that American freedoms are being threatened.
Too bad that you required Liberal to come and save your sorry excuse for a well reasoned argument.
Okay, one down.
“EPIC has received two sets of documents revealing that the scope of the FBI’s powers under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act is broader than what government officials have publicly acknowledged. Among other things, the documents show that the controversial provision can be used to collect information about innocent people and state that Section 215 may authorize law enforcement to obtain an individual’s apartment keys.”
http://www.epic.org/privacy/terrorism/usapatriot/
“But the Attorney General was not satisfied with the new powers granted by the Patriot Act. In May, Ashcroft decided to rewrite longstanding restrictions on domestic spying by law enforcement. Under the new guidelines, the FBI can freely infiltrate mosques, churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship, listen in on online chat rooms, and read message boards, even if it has no evidence that a crime might be committed.”
http://gaytoday.com/events/092002ev.asp
There’s a whole lot of stuff out there on these things, Jodi. You can google. And it isn’t just libertarian nutjobs who are up in arms about it. See, for example, this statement by the North Carolina Council of Churches:
NYCTEA –
Dense dense NYCTEA. Which laws are you speaking of? As a legislative researcher, I’m sure you know how to cite to the Virginia code, so get cracking and let’s see 'em.
So what? A bill does nothing. It doesn’t advance your rights, restrict your rights, expand your rights, impact your rights at all. Because it’s not law. So it is ridiculous for you to continue to assert that the fact that people introduce (or reintroduce) bills some how proves rights are “vanishing.”
[qutoe]There are many laws restricting access to the morning-after pill
[/quote]
Such as . . . ?
Such as . . . .? Med-mal caps are not per se unconstitutional, by the way.
Such as . . . ? Recall that the existing state of “gay rights” (unfortunately) is that, insofar as marriage is concerned, they don’t have it. So the fact that they don’t have it can hardly be an example of a right “vanishing,” since it’s not a right they’ve been held to have anyway, except in Massachusetts. Though as OTTO says, I trust that’s slowly going to change.
Not so far as I can tell.
Wowsers. It’s therefore doubly surprising that you don’t have a better grasp on what effect unenacted proposed legislation has on rights. Here’s a hint: None.
Society restricts people in myriad ways. That doesn’t mean they are not “free” as the word is generally applied to societies – i.e., as enjoying a broad range of rights. Do you mourn the loss of your ability to steal without being punished? Do you mourn the loss of your ability to run a machine shop in your house? Every restriction on your ability to do exactly what you want, when you want, is “an anti-freedom.” That’s hardly the basis for deciding whether or not a society as a whole can be deemed to be free – and, again, no one but you is talking about perfectly free. And a right that is unacknowledged by the society in which it is sought to be exercised, is nothing more than an aspiration. Who decides what rights are “fundamental and exist for all humans”? You? Roosevelt declared that every person has the right to be “free from want.” How’s that working out?
I don’t really care about your opinion; it’s your indefensible overgeneralization that rights are “vanishing before our eyes” that I call bullshit on.
I guess you missed my last post, post #200??? I suggest you go back and take a look.
You’re thinking of Yaser Hamdi. Padilla was simply sent back to the lower court. But even in Hamdi’s case, a majority still ruled that the president has authority to hold him with the designation of “enemy combatant”. All the court gave him was a “right” to counsel.
Jodi, just google the Patriot Act. Get informed and get involved. We need bright people like you to be aware of these things.
This thread was a lot more fun to read when it was about bashing the Irish.
Yeah, why don’t we forget about trivia like losing our civil liberties and yap about important stuff like Bush’s bad hair and Texas accent? :rolleyes:
Ask and you shall receive. Here is a sampling of med mal related measures from 2004. It’s so long, I will have to post several times to fit it all in.
Colorado SB 166 SB 166, as amended on February 4, 2004, makes a one time adjustment for inflation to the one million dollar damages limitation contained in the statute governing medical negligence recovery in accordance with the consumer price index of the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics. This bill clarifies that the adjustment does not alter or amend the limitations on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions.
Connecticut HB 5043 HB 5043, as amended with a committee substitute on March 22, 2004, provides that person is guilty of enticing a minor when such person uses an interactive computer service to knowingly persuade, induce, entice or coerce any person under sixteen years of age to engage in prostitution or sexual activity for which the actor may be charged with a criminal offense. This bill originally provided that in any civil action filed on or after October 1, 2004, to recover damages resulting from personal injury or wrongful death resulting from the negligence of a health care provider, noneconomic damages awarded to the claimant shall not exceed $250,000.
District of Columbia B 874 B 874 creates the health care liability reform act of 2004 . This bill establishes a 60-day period for the Commissioner of Insurance Commissioner to review a rate filing for a medical liability insurance increase before allowing the rate to go into effect. This bill also requires a certificate of merit in medical liability actions and established limits on compensation for non-economic damages in medical liability cases.
Florida HJR 1337 HJR 1337 is a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the State Constitution to ensure a medical liability claimant’s right to fair compensation in any medical liability claim.
Georgia HB 1343 HB 1343 provides that in any verdict returned or judgment entered in an action for medical malpractice the total amount recoverable for any injury to, or death of, a claimant for noneconomic damages shall not exceed $250,000, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought, or the number of separate claims or actions brought, or the number of parties bringing such claims or actions, with respect to an act or series of acts of malpractice. This bill provides that in any such action for medical malpractice, the jury shall not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. An award for noneconomic damages in excess of $250,000 shall be reduced by the court either before the entry of judgment, or by amendment of the judgment after entry of judgment, and such reduction shall be made before accounting for any other reduction in damages required by law. This bill provides that in any such action for medical malpractice, if an award of future damages equaling or exceeding $50,000 is made against any party in the action, the trial court shall, upon the request of any party, issue an order providing that such damages be paid by periodic payments.
Georgia HB 1813 HB 1813 relates to general provisions relative to torts, so as to limit attorney’s fees in medical malpractice claims. This bill provides application to recovery by settlement, arbitration, mediation, or judgment and provides that the Act does not preclude contracts for fees less than the limits, court assessment of reasonable fees, and court determination that attorney’s fees are unreasonably high.
Hawaii SB 2183 SB 2183 states that with respect to actions for medical torts, as defined in section 671-1, noneconomic damages shall be limited to a maximum award of $250,000. This bill defines “medical tort” as a negligent act or omission to act by a health care provider in the rendering of professional services, or the rendering of professional service by a health care provider without informed consent, which act or omission or rendering of service without informed consent is the proximate cause of a personal injury or wrongful death, provided that such services are within the scope of services for which the provider is licensed and which are not within any restriction imposed by the licensing agency or licensed hospital.
Illinois SB 2997 SB 2997 amends the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill limits attorney’s fees in medical malpractice actions to $1,000,000 plus reasonable and documented expenses. This bill provides that the non-prevailing defendants shall pay such fees in addition to any award for economic and noneconomic damages in the case. This bill provides standards for determining economic and non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions.
Illinois SB 3039 SB 3039 amends the Code of Civil Procedure. This bill provides standards for determining economic and non-economic damages in medical malpractice actions.
Iowa HB 2440 HB 2440, as amended on April 12, 2004, this bill provides that in any action for damages for injury or death against any health care provider, the injured plaintiff shall be entitled to recover noneconomic damages, but such damages shall not exceed $250,000 except upon a finding of actual malice on the part of the defendant. This bill establishes the Noneconomic Damage Awards Against Health Care Provider Act.
Iowa SSB 3114 SSB 3114 provides that in an action for personal injury or wrongful death against a physician and surgeon, osteopath, osteopathic physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, optometrist, pharmacist, chiropractor, or nurse or against a hospital, based on the alleged negligence of the practitioner or hospital, in which liability is admitted or established, an award of punitive or exemplary damages shall not exceed $250,000.
Louisiana SB 528 SB 528 provides for liability of certain tortfeasors for damages.
Maryland HB 287 HB 287 set a limit of $500,000 on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice injuries. This bill defines “economic damages” as past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past loss of earnings and future loss of earnings and defines “medical expenses” as any costs that have been or will be incurred by or on behalf of the claimant as a result of a medical injury, including the costs of medical and hospital, rehabilitative, residential and custodial care and service, special equipment or facilities and related travel. This bill also defines “noneconomic damages” as a claim for personal injury, pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, or other nonpecuniary injury; or as a claim for wrongful death, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, care, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education, or other damages other than economic damages.
Maryland SB 193 SB 193 sets a limit of $500,000 on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice injuries. This bill defines “economic damages” as past medical expenses, future medical expenses, past loss of earnings and future loss of earnings and defines “medical expenses” as any costs that have been or will be incurred by or on behalf of the claimant as a result of a medical injury, including the costs of medical and hospital, rehabilitative, residential and custodial care and service, special equipment or facilities and related travel. This bill also defines “noneconomic damages” as a claim for personal injury, pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, loss of consortium, or other nonpecuniary injury; or as a claim for wrongful death, mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of society, companionship, comfort, protection, care, marital care, parental care, filial care, attention, advice, counsel, training, guidance, or education, or other damages other than economic damages.
Minnesota HB 2038 (SB 2385) HB 2038 provides that in an action against a provider for malpractice, whether based in contract or tort, adherence to a best practice guideline approved by either a recognized specialty organization or an organization established for the purpose of developing community-based clinical practice guidelines is an absolute defense against an allegation that the provider did not comply with accepted standards of practice. This bill also provides that in an action for injury against a health care provider alleging malpractice, the amount of damages awarded for noneconomic losses must not exceed $250,000, regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought with respect to the same occurrence
Minnesota HB 2778 (SB 2563) HB 2778 provides for a moratorium on mandated health benefits. In addition it declares that the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 will be effective at the same time it becomes effective for federal purposes.The bill also provides that the commissioner of commerce shall permit health carriers to offer alternative health benefit plans to small employers if certain requirements are satisfied. Another provision within this bill states that, in a malpractice action against a provider, adherence to a best practice guideline approved by either a recognized specialty organization or an organization established for the purpose of developing community-based clinical practice guidelines is an absolute defense against an allegation that the provider did not comply with accepted standards of practice in the community. The bill also provides for limits on damages and attorney fees in health care provider actions.
Minnesota SB 2563 (HB 2778) SB 2563 provides for a moratorium on mandated health benefits. In addition the bill declares that the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 will be effective at the same time it becomes effective for federal purposes.The bill also provides that the commissioner of commerce shall permit health carriers to offer alternative health benefit plans to small employers if certain requirements are satisfied. Other provisions include, in a malpractice action against a provider, adherence to a best practice guideline approved by either a recognized specialty organization or an organization established for the purpose of developing community-based clinical practice guidelines is an absolute defense against an allegation that the provider did not comply with accepted standards of practice in the community. The bill also provides for limits on damages and attorney fees in health care provider actions.
Mississippi HB 3 HB 3 revises the venue in general civil actions, revises the limitation on noneconomic damages in malpractice actions and provides limitations on noneconomic damages in all other civil actions. This bill provides that a product seller other than a manufacturer shall not be liable for a latent defect if the seller is a mere conduit who purchased the product from a reputable manufacturer and prohibits multiple punitive damage awards for the same conduct of a defendant except in certain cases. This bill prohibits punitive damages against a defendant for any regulated activity conducted in compliance with federal and state regulations, and revises the maximum amount of punitive damage awards. This bill revises the immunity of premises owners from civil liability, revises the limitation of joint and several liability for damages caused by two or more persons and repeals section 11-1-64, mississippi code of 1972, which provides the procedure for dismissing a defendant whose liability is based solely on his status as a seller in the stream of commerce. This bill eliminates certain juror disqualifications, provides that jurors can only be excused from service for illness or undue hardship, provides that jurors can postpone jury service one time only and limits the frequency of jury service. This bill also requires notice of jury service exemption entitlement to be included in juror summonses, revises the punishment for failure to appear for jury service, provides employment protections for jurors and creates a lengthy trial fund. This bill eliminates certain juror exemptions which provide certain exemptions from jury service, provide that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel, allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement, establishes the membership review panel and provides what evidence may be considered by the panel. This bill also provides the form of the decision, provides for panelist immunity and compensation and provides that the losing party shall pay attorney fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances.
Mississippi HB 4 HB 4, as passed by the House, enacts certain civil justice system reforms. The bill revises the venue in general civil actions; provides for class actions; revises premises liability; revises joint and several liability; provides that jurors can only be excused from service for illness or undue hardship; provides that jurors can postpone jury service one time only; limits the frequency of jury service; requires notice of jury service exemption entitlement to be included in juror summonses; revises the punishment for failure to appear for jury service; provides employment protections for jurors; creates a lengthy trial fund; eliminates certain juror exemptions; and provides certain exemptions from jury service. The bill also revises the definition of “employee” for purposes of limited liability under the tort claims board to include those physicians who provide health care services to Medicaid recipients, state and school employees health insurance plan participants and children’s health insurance program participants if at least 35 percent of the physician’s patients are Medicaid recipients, or not to exceed 125 physicians; and includes certain retired physicians who provide volunteer unpaid health care services to any public entity or private entity. The bill creates in the state treasury a special fund to the credit of the Mississippi tort claims board which shall be comprised of any funds made available for the fund by the legislature; provides that monies in the special fund shall be expended by the Mississippi tort claims board to provide additional funds for prior act coverage for plan participants and to pay the medical malpractice premiums for those retired physicians described herein. It creates an advisory council to assist the Mississippi tort claims board in determining whether a physician meets the percentage requirement necessary to qualify as an employee for limited liability purposes, and provides for medical practice of disclosure; imposes powers and duties on the state board of medical licensure and the state department of health. Sections 19 through 28 of the bill are cited as the Medical Practice Disclosure Act, which establishes a procedure by which the general public may obtain essential and basic information concerning potential health care providers, while ensuring the accuracy and disclosure of all relevant information that would enable individuals to informatively select their health care provider. The bill provides for the State Board of Medical Licensure and the State Department of Health to collect certain information about physicians in the state. The bill also provides the right for harmed patients to attend disciplinary proceedings involving the physician responsible for the harm; requires statewide publication of recall notices; provides for a direct action against an insurer; provides that policy shall contain provisions that insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured shall not release the insurer from liability; provides that actions may be brought against the insurer alone in certain situations; and provides that the insurance policy shall be admissible into evidence. As amended and passed by the Senate, the bill revises the limitation on noneconomic damages in malpractice actions and to provide limitations on noneconomic damages in all other civil actions; provides that a product seller other than a manufacturer shall not be liable for a latent defect if the seller is a mere conduit who purchased the product from a reputable manufacturer; prohibits multiple punitive damage awards for the same conduct of a defendant except in certain cases, prohibits punitive damages against a defendant for any regulated activity conducted in compliance with federal and state regulations, and to revise the maximum amount of punitive damage awards; revises the immunity of premises owners from civil liability; revises the limitation of joint and several liability for damages caused by two or more persons; repeals statute which provides the procedure for dismissing a defendant whose liability is based solely on his status as a seller in the stream of commerce; provides that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel; allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement; establishes the membership review panel; provides what evidence may be considered by the panel; provides the form of the decision; provides for panelist immunity and compensation; and provides that the losing party shall pay attorney fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances.
For Jodi:
Mississippi HB 5 HB 5 revises the venue in general civil actions, revises caps on noneconomic damages and provides for class actions. This bill revises premises liability, revises joint and several liability, provides that jurors can only be excused from service for illness or undue hardship and provides that jurors can postpone jury service one time only. This bill also limits the frequency of jury service, requires notice of jury service exemption entitlement to be included in juror summonses and revises the punishment for failure to appear for jury service. This bill provides employment protections for jurors, creates a lengthy trial fund, eliminates certain juror exemptions and repeals sections 41-17-7 and 47-5-55, mississippi code of 1972, which provide certain exemptions from jury service. This bill also revises the definition of “employee” for purposes of limited liability under the tort claims board to include those physicians who provide health care services to medicaid recipients, state and school employees health insurance plan participants and children’s health insurance program participants if at least thirty-five percent of the physician’s patients are medicaid recipients, or not to exceed one hundred twenty-five physicians, includes certain retired physicians who provide volunteer unpaid health care services to any public entity or private entity and creates in the state treasury a special fund to the credit of the mississippi tort claims board which shall be comprised of any funds made available for the fund by the legislature. This bill provides that monies in the special fund shall be expended by the mississippi tort claims board to provide additional funds for prior act coverage for plan participants and to pay the medical malpractice premiums for those retired physicians described herein and creates an advisory council to assist the mississippi tort claims board in determining whether a physician meets the percentage requirement necessary to qualify as an employee for limited liability purposes. This bill also provides for medical practice of disclosure, imposes powers and duties on the state board of medical licensure and the state department of health and provides for penalties. This bill also provides the right for harmed patients to attend disciplinary proceedings involving the physician responsible for the harm, requires statewide publication of recall notices and provides for a direct action against an insurer. This bill provides that policy shall contain provisions that insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured shall not release the insurer from liability, provides that actions may be brought against the insurer alone in certain situations and provides that the insurance policy shall be admissible into evidence. This bill provides that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel, allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement and establishes the membership review panel. This bill also provides what evidence may be considered by the panel, provides the form of the decision, provides for panelist immunity and compensation and provides that the losing party shall pay attorney fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances.
Mississippi HB 6 HB 6 revises the venue in general civil actions, revises caps on noneconomic damages; to bring forward sections 11-1-63 and 11-1-64, mississippi code of 1972, for purposes of amendment related to innocent seller revisions and revises punitive damages. This bill revises premises liability, revises joint and several liability, provides that jurors can only be excused from service for illness or undue hardship and provides that jurors can postpone jury service one time only. This bill also limits the frequency of jury service, requires notice of jury service exemption entitlement to be included in juror summonses and revises the punishment for failure to appear for jury service. This bill also provides employment protections for jurors, creates a lengthy trial fund and eliminates certain juror exemptions. This bill repeals sections 41-17-7 and 47-5-55, mississippi code of 1972, which provide certain exemptions from jury service, expands the medical malpractice availability plan that is administered by the tort claims board for prior acts coverage purposes and revises the definition of “employee” for purposes of limited liability under the tort claims board to include those physicians who provide health care services to medicaid recipients, state and school employees health insurance plan participants and children’s health insurance program participants if at least thirty-five percent of the physician’s patients are medicaid recipients, or not to exceed one hundred twenty-five physicians. This bill includes certain retired physicians who provide volunteer unpaid health care services to any public entity or private entity, creates in the state treasury a special fund to the credit of the mississippi tort claims board which shall be comprised of any funds made available for the fund by the legislature and provides that monies in the special fund shall be expended by the mississippi tort claims board to provide additional funds for prior act coverage for plan participants and to pay the medical malpractice premiums for those retired physicians described herein. This bill creates an advisory council to assist the mississippi tort claims board in determining whether a physician meets the percentage requirement necessary to qualify as an employee for limited liability purposes, provides rates for copies of medical records that may be charged by medical providers and facilities, provides for medical practice disclosure and imposes powers and duties on the state board of medical licensure and the state department of health. This bill also provides for penalties, provides the right for harmed patients to attend disciplinary proceedings involving the physician responsible for the harm and requires statewide publication of recall notices. This bill allows bench trials in certain cases if the parties agree, provides for a direct action against an insurer, provides that policy shall contain provisions that insolvency or bankruptcy of the insured shall not release the insurer from liability and provides that actions may be brought against the insurer alone in certain situations. This bill also provides that the insurance policy shall be admissible into evidence, provides that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel, allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement and establishes the membership review panel. This bill provides what evidence may be considered by the panel, provides the form of the decision, provides for panelist immunity and compensation and provides that the losing party shall pay attorney fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances.
Mississippi HB 12 HB 12 revises the venue in general civil actions, revises caps on noneconomic damages and brings forward sections 11-1-63 and 11-1-64, Mississippi code of 1972, for purposes of amendment related to innocent seller revisions. This bill revises punitive damages, revises premises liability and revises joint and several liability. This bill also bring forward sections 13-5-23, 13-5-25, 13-5-28, 13-5-34, 25-7-61 and 33-1-5, Mississippi code of 1972, regarding selection of jurors for purposes of amendment and expands the medical malpractice availability plan that is administered by the tort claims board for prior acts coverage purposes. This bill revises the definition of “employee” for purposes of limited liability under the tort claims board to include those physicians who provide health care services to medicaid recipients, state and school employees health insurance plan participants and children’s health insurance program participants if at least thirty-five percent of the physician’s patients are medicaid recipients, or not to exceed one hundred twenty-five physicians and includes certain retired physicians who provide volunteer unpaid health care services to any public entity or private entity. This bill also creates in the state treasury a special fund to the credit of the Mississippi tort claims board which shall be comprised of any funds made available for the fund by the legislature, provides that monies in the special fund shall be expended by the Mississippi tort claims board to provide additional funds for prior act coverage for plan participants and to pay the medical malpractice premiums for those retired physicians described herein and creates an advisory council to assist the Mississippi tort claims board in determining whether a physician meets the percentage requirement necessary to qualify as an employee for limited liability purposes. This bill provides rates for copies of medical records that may be charged by medical providers and facilities, provides the right for harmed patients to attend disciplinary proceedings involving the physician responsible for the harm and provides for a waiver of the medical privilege in certain cases. This bill requires statewide publication of recall notices, allows bench trials in certain cases if the parties agree and provides that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel. This bill also allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement, establishes the membership of the review panel and provides what evidence may be considered by the panel.
Mississippi HB 13 HB 13, as amended June 2, 2004, requires a roll back of insurance premium rates. It also revises the venue in general civil actions, revises caps on noneconomic damages and amends innocent seller revisions. This bill revises punitive damages, revises premises liability and revises joint and several liability. This bill also expands the medical malpractice availability plan that is administered by the tort claims board for prior acts coverage purposes. This bill revises the definition of “employee” for purposes of limited liability under the tort claims board to include those physicians who provide health care services to medicaid recipients, state and school employees health insurance plan participants and children’s health insurance program participants if at least thirty-five percent of the physician’s patients are medicaid recipients, or not to exceed one hundred twenty-five physicians and includes certain retired physicians who provide volunteer unpaid health care services to any public entity or private entity. This bill also creates in the state treasury a special fund to the credit of the Mississippi tort claims board which shall be comprised of any funds made available for the fund by the legislature, provides that monies in the special fund shall be expended by the Mississippi tort claims board to provide additional funds for prior act coverage for plan participants and to pay the medical malpractice premiums for those retired physicians described herein and creates an advisory council to assist the Mississippi tort claims board in determining whether a physician meets the percentage requirement necessary to qualify as an employee for limited liability purposes. This bill provides rates for copies of medical records that may be charged by medical providers and facilities, provides the right for harmed patients to attend disciplinary proceedings involving the physician responsible for the harm and provides for a waiver of the medical privilege in certain cases. This bill requires statewide publication of recall notices, allows bench trials in certain cases if the parties agree and provides that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel. This bill also allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement, establishes the membership of the review panel and provides what evidence may be considered by the panel.
Mississippi HB 95 HB 95 includes Medicaid physicians in the definition of employee in the tort claims act and limits damages against medicaid physicians to $250,000.00.
Mississippi HB 556 HB 556 states that in any action for injury based on malpractice or breach of standard of care against a provider of health care, including institutions for the aged or infirm, in the event the trier of fact finds the defendant liable, they shall not award the plaintiff more than Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($250,000.00) for noneconomic damages.
Mississippi SB 2001 SB 2001 revises the venue in general civil actions, provides limitations on noneconomic damages in all civil actions and provides that a product seller other than a manufacturer shall not be liable for a latent defect if the seller is a mere conduit who purchased the product from a reputable manufacturer. This bill prohibits multiple punitive damage awards for the same conduct of a defendant except in certain cases, prohibits punitive damages against a defendant for any regulated activity conducted in compliance with federal and state regulations and revises the maximum amount of punitive damage awards. This bill also revises the immunity of premises owners from civil liability, revises the limitation of joint and several liability for damages caused by two or more persons and repeals section 11-1-64, mississippi code of 1972, which provides the procedure for dismissing a defendant whose liability is based solely on his status as a seller in the stream of commerce. This bill eliminates certain juror disqualifications, provides that jurors can only be excused from service for illness or undue hardship and provides that jurors can postpone jury service one time only. This bill also limits the frequency of jury service, require notices of jury service exemption entitlement to be included in juror summonses, revises the punishment for failure to appear for jury service and provides employment protections for jurors. This bill also creates a lengthy trial fund, eliminates certain juror exemptions and repeals sections 41-17-7 and 47-5-55, mississippi code of 1972, which provide certain exemptions from jury service. This bill provides that all malpractice claims shall be reviewed by a medical review panel, allows parties to mutually agree to opt out of this requirement, establishes the membership review panel and provide what evidence may be considered by the panel. This bill also provides the form of the decision, provides for panelist immunity and compensation and provides that the losing party shall pay attorney fees to the prevailing party under certain circumstances.
New Jersey AB 549 AB 549 limits the liability of health care providers to $250,000 for pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and other nonpecuniary damages.
New Jersey AB 659 AB 659 establishes procedures for the more expeditious discovery and disposition of medical malpractice claims in order to reduce the costs of litigation, and therefore ultimately, the premiums paid by physicians and other health care providers for medical malpractice liability insurance. Further, the bill establishes certain parameters with respect to proof and liability in medical malpractice actions, also in the interests of affordability and availability of malpractice insurance.
New Jersey AB 1513 AB 1513 provides that physicians, whether licensed in this State or another state, who give expert testimony or execute affidavits, shall have been in practice at least five years and be registered with the State Board of Medical Examiners to give that testimony or execute those affidavits. For a physician to qualify as an expert witness or to execute an affidavit, he must be in the same general practice or specialty of the defendant. Every affidavit of a physician and court transcript containing expert testimony of a physician in regard to a medical malpractice action are required to be delivered to the State Board of Medical Examiners for review of their accuracy and consistency with other testimony given or affidavits executed in the past. This bill limits the discovery rule and provides that medical malpractice liability actions must be filed within three years of the occurrence of the professional negligence, and provides that such actions by a minor under the age of four years shall be commenced within two years or prior to the minor’s 6th birthday, whichever is later. The current statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions is two years. However, under the discovery rule, the statute is tolled and does not begin to run until the plaintiff knew or, through the exercise of reasonable due diligence, should have known, of the injury. The result of this rule is that the tail for medical malpractice liability actions can be virtually infinite. This bill provides that a health care provider in a multi-party medical malpractice lawsuit is only liable for that percentage of the damages directly attributable to him. Current law provides that a negligent party may be held liable for all the damages in a multi-party medical malpractice lawsuit if the judge or jury determines that party is 60% or more responsible for the total damages. This bill prohibits a medical malpractice liability insurer from increasing the premium of an insured for a medical malpractice liability claim unless that claim results in a medical malpractice claim settlement, judgment ,or arbitration award against the insured.
New Jersey AB 1701 AB 1701 revises laws concerning medical malpractice claims, procedures and liability insurance. This bill modifies procedures for the disposition of medical malpractice claims and provides for optional mediation of claims against health care providers. This bill defines the burdens of proof that the plaintiff in a medical malpractice action must meet. This bill limits noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions for injuries that are neither serious nor permanent to $250,000, and serious and permanent injuries or illnesses, as enumerated in the bill, would have a $500,000 limitation. In cases in which the judgment or settlement exceeds $1,000,000, the bill requires structured settlement of money damages for economic and noneconomic loss. In the case of both this amount, and the limits on noneconomic damages, the Supreme Court shall adjust the amounts annually based on the Consumer Price Index. This bill amends the current statute of limitations on the filing of suits as it affects minors; suits on behalf of minors would have to be filed for injuries sustained at birth before the minor’s tenth birthday. This bill prohibits retaliation by a health care facility or agency against an employee who reports malpractice or acts as an expert witness in a malpractice action. This bill extends the current $250,000 cap on awards for both economic and noneconomic loss presently given to hospitals to hospital employees other than physicians. This bill also expands the State’s “Good Samaritan” law to provide immunity from civil damages to licensed health care professionals, paramedics, and emergency medical technicians whose duty does not require a response to a patient emergency situation and who, in good faith, nevertheless responds to a request for emergency assistance in a hospital or other licensed health care facility. To assist physicians in obtaining medical malpractice insurance coverage at the most reasonable price, the bill permits the establishment of purchasing alliances and permits groups of physicians to enter into risk retention agreements.
For Jodi:
New Jersey AB 1773 AB 1773, the New Jersey Medical Care Access and Responsibility and Patients First Act, prohibits any person who is an officer, director or board member of a professional association for health care providers to serve, simultaneously, as an officer, director or board member of a State-domiciled medical malpractice liability insurer that is issuing policies in the State. The bill also provides that no more than one person who has been an officer, director or board member of a professional association for health care providers shall serve as an officer, director or board member of a State-domiciled medical malpractice liability insurer that is issuing policies in the State. For the purpose of negotiating a reduced medical malpractice liability insurance premium, the bill would permit physicians to join together, by means of a joint contract, to form a Medical Malpractice Liability Insurance Purchasing Alliance. The bill provides that a medical malpractice liability insurance policy may contain a provision that provides a person insured under the policy with the exclusive right to require the insurer to obtain the consent of the insured to settle any claim filed against the insured; but if the policy contains that provision, the insurer would be required to offer an endorsement to the policy that provides the insurer the right to settle a claim filed under the policy without first having obtained the insured’s consent. The insurer would be required to establish a premium for the endorsement, which premium shall reflect any savings or reduced costs attributable to the endorsement, and the insured would have the option of accepting or refusing the endorsement. This bill requires that every medical malpractice liability insurer shall offer individual or group medical malpractice liability insurance policies with a deductible, at the option of the insured, in an amount of at least $5,000 per claim and up to $1 million per claim and may require the insured to provide collateral for the deductible amount to the insurer. The bill provides for oversight by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance with respect to certain rates in effect for any category or subcategory of insureds, of any medical malpractice liability insurer, that increase in excess of 25 percent, and provide that the insured may petition the commissioner to investigate and, if appropriate, to conduct a hearing into whether the rates fail to comply with the current law. The bill permits health care professionals, under terms and conditions established by the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance, to request their medical malpractice insurer to recalculate their premium to reflect any cost savings provisions of the amendments, and to cancel their policy without penalty in the event the professional is able to obtain less expensive coverage from another insurer.
New York AB 8922 (SB 5365) AB 8922, as amended on May 12, 2004, adds a midwife to the personal liability limits in certain malpractice verdicts when alleged negligence or other misconduct caused an injury to an infant prior to, during, or immediate y after an infant’s birth. The bill provides that the personal liability of obstetricians and gynecologists for non-economic and actual economic loss be limited in certain cases to $250,000; establishes an impaired infant compensation fund to pay for loss above $250,000 in some cases; and provides for payment of medical and other expenses of an “impaired infant.”
New York AB 9599 (SB 469) AB 9599 enacts the “medical liability reform act”. This bill requires that an attorney for a plaintiff in a medical, dental or podiatric malpractice case must include with the certificate of merit, an affidavit of an appropriate medical professional licensed in this state stating that there is a reasonable basis for such malpractice action. This bill limits noneconomic damages in such causes of action to $250,000, and requires enhanced and comprehensive disclosure of expert witnesses to be used by any party in medical, dental and podiatric malpractice cases.
New York SB 5365 (AB 8922) SB 5365, as amended on May 7, 2004, adds a midwife to the liability provisions for attending physicians, which also include an obstetrician and gynecologist. The bill provides that the personal liability of obstetricians and gynecologists for non-economic and actual economic loss be limited in certain cases to $250,000; establishes impaired infant compensation fund to pay for loss above $250,000 in some cases; provides for payment of medical and other expenses of an “impaired infant”.
New York SB 5628 SB 5628 provides that, in itemizing amounts intended to compensate for future economic damages, including but not limited to medical expenses, dental expenses, podiatric expenses, loss of earnings and impairment of earning ability, the jury must set forth, as to each element of such damages, the year in which the loss as to that element of damages begins; the annual dollar amount of loss or expense, without accounting for inflation; the annual rate of inflation, if any; and whether the injuries as to which the jury has awarded future damages for medical expenses, dental expenses or podiatric expenses are permanent. The bill provides that in itemizing the amount intended to compensate for future pain and suffering, the jury must set forth the period of years over which such amount is intended to provide compensation.
Oklahoma HB 2130 HB 2130 states that in any medical liability action, in which the health care services at issue were either pregnancy or labor and delivery, including the immediate post-partum period or emergency care in the emergency room of a hospital or as follow-up to the emergency care services provided in the emergency room, the amount of noneconomic damages awarded shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of actions brought with respect to the personal injury.
Oklahoma HB 2151 HB 2151 states that in any medical liability action in which health care services are at issue the amount of noneconomic damages awarded shall not exceed Three Hundred Thousand Dollars ($300,000.00), regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of actions brought with respect to the personal injury.
Pennsylvania HB 2722 HB 2722, as amended on June 30, 2004, addresses medical professional liability claims brought against licensed health care professionals, or health care facilities. This bill provides that the general assembly may, by statute, limit the recovery of noneconomic damages for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons.
Pennsylvania HB 2763 HB 2763 provides that a health care provider is not eligible for limitation of damages in an action based on medical malpractice involving a serious event unless the health care provider notifies the affected patient of the serious event, advises the affected patient on corrective action and reports the serious event to the administrative agency which licenses or certifies the health care provider, within 24 hours of discovery of the serious event by the health care provider.
Pennsylvania SB 50 SB 50 provides that the General Assembly shall not limit the recovery of economic damages for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons or property but may by statute limit the recovery of noneconomic damages for injuries resulting in death, or for injuries to persons and property.
Pennsylvania SB 1000 SB 1000 amends the constitution of Pennsylvania to give the General Assembly the authority to limit the amount of recovery in a medical professional liability action for noneconomic damages, but only if the act or omission alleged does not result from reckless, willful or wanton misconduct or does not result in an injury determined by the fact finder to be a serious impairment of bodily function, serious disfigurement or death.
Puerto Rico SB 2922 SB 2922 amends insurance code to permit health care professionals and the institutions that provide care to establish systems to credit or assign financial responsibility as equal or in excess of that established in the code when responding to medical malpractice cases between two entities. In Spanish the bill states that it will “Permite que los profesionales de servicios de salud y las instituciones de cuidado de salud puedan establecer sistemas que acrediten su responsabilidad financiera igual o en exceso a lo establecido en el Código para responder por casos de mala práctica médica entre otros riesgos.”
Rhode Island HB 7299 HB 7299 would require that every insurer who provides professional liability insurance to a licensed physician include in a written report in the case of settlements and judgments, an itemization of the award stating an amount for economic damages, noneconomic damages, medical expenses and interest accrued
Rhode Island SB 2706 SB 2706 imposes a $500,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions.
South Carolina HB 4464 (SB 0948) HB 4464 enacts the “medical malpractice and patient safety reform act.” Among other things, the bill allows the Department of Insurance to place an assessment on medical malpractice insurance premiums to generate revenues to carry out the provisions of this bill.
South Carolina SB 948 (HB 4464) SB 948 enacts “Medical Malpractice and Patient Safety Reform Act” which establishes the medical claims review office to conduct pre-litigation reviews of all claims of alleged medical malpractice. This bill also requires mandatory adjusting of medical malpractice claims by a healthcare provider’s insurance carrier and that certain identifying healthcare provider outcome data be available to certain governmental entities. This bill requires parties in a medical malpractice action to participate in mediation prior to the case coming to trial and establishes a $300,000 cap on noneconomic damages.
South Dakota HB 1139 HB 1139 limits general damages and attorneys’ fees in medical malpractice actions to not exceed $250,000. The bill requires that the total amount for all contingent fees for representing all plaintiffs in any action must not exceed 40 percent of the first $50,000 recovered, 33 and one-third percent of the next $50,000 recovered, 25 percent of the next $5,000 recovered, and 15 percent of any amount by which the recovery exceeds $6,000.
Vermont HB 768 HB 768 provides appropriations for the operations of state government during fiscal year 2005. The bill directs the department of banking, insurance, securities, and health care administration and the department of health shall to report to the general assembly by January 15, 2005 on the consumer protections currently in place regarding privacy of medical records. The report shall specifically address the adequacy of these protections in the event of hospital outsourcing of medical records transcription to a contractor based in a foreign country and any recommendations for legislative action in this regard. The bill provides for funds for health professional loan repayment. These funds may be used either alone or to match federal national health service corps loan repayment funds, local funds, or private funds and shall be made available to primary care providers, dentists, licensed nurses, and dental hygienists who agree to practice for a prescribed period of time in the state or at an accredited hospital within 10 miles of the Vermont border, serving a portion of the state designated as a health professional shortage population, or other rural or underserved areas. Educational scholarships, loan repayment grants, loan deferment payments, and payments of taxes due on the award may be considered for payment. The bill provides for the department of prevention, assistance, transition, and health access (PATH) in cooperation with the department of health to operate an HIV/AIDS insurance assistance program. The program shall pay all or a portion of continuation health insurance premiums for those eligible individuals with HIV/AIDS for whom it can be determined that continuation of private insurance coverage is less costly to the state than other alternatives. The bill states that the general assembly recognizes that increasing malpractice insurance premium costs are jeopardizing access to physician services for Medicaid beneficiaries and that $250,000.00 from the health access trust fund, along with federal matching funds, shall be used to increase reimbursement paid to physicians. The bill provides for prescription drug price disclosure. It provides that, upon request, a pharmacy shall disclose to any consumer or health care provider the usual and customary retail price of a prescription drug. The bill provides for pharmaceutical marketer price disclosure. It requires pharmaceutical manufacturing companies to report the value, nature, and purpose of all gift expenditures according to specific categories. It provides that when a pharmaceutical marketer engages in any form of prescription drug marketing directly to a physician or other person authorized to prescribe prescription drugs, the marketer shall disclose to the physician or other prescriber the average wholesale price (AWP) of the drugs being marketed. Disclosure shall include the AWP per pill and the price relationship between the drug being marketed and other drugs within the same therapeutic class. The bill provides that all public pharmaceutical assistance programs shall provide coverage for those over the counter drugs on the preferred drug list provided the drugs are authorized as part of the medical treatment of a specific disease or condition and they are a less costly, medically appropriate substitute for a currently covered prescription drug. The bill provides that a health insurer and pharmacy benefit manager doing business in Vermont shall permit a retail pharmacist to fill prescriptions in the same manner and at the same level of reimbursement as they are filled by mail order pharmacies with respect to the quantity of drugs or days’ supply of drugs dispensed under each prescription The bill provides that no later than November 1, 2004, the commissioner of personnel shall report to the health access oversight committee and the senate and house committees on health and welfare on whether use of the preferred drug list in the state employees health benefit plan would, in his or her opinion, provide economic and health benefits to the state employees health benefit plan and to beneficiaries of the plan. The bill provides that with input from physicians, pharmacists, private insurers, hospitals, pharmacy benefit managers, and the drug utilization review board, an evidence-based research education program will be designed to provide information and education on the therapeutic and cost-effective utilization of prescription drugs to physicians, pharmacists, and other health care professionals authorized to prescribe and dispense prescription drugs. To the extent possible, the program shall inform prescribers about drug marketing that is intended to circumvent competition from generic alternatives. The bill provides that the commissioner of prevention, assistance, transition, and health access shall report to the health access oversight committee concerning the drug utilization review board’s analysis of prescribing patterns, literature, and testimony regarding clinical efficacy and outcomes, expenditure trends, and any proposed revisions to the preferred drug list as it pertains to drugs used to treat mental illness. The bill calls for the analysis the financial impact on the state of Vermont and on Vermont Medicare beneficiaries caused by implementation of the federal Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003, and creates a prescription drug benefit working group. The bill provides that a health insurance or other health benefit plan offered by a health insurer shall provide coverage for prescription drugs purchased in Canada, and used in Canada or reimported legally, on the same benefit terms and conditions as prescription drugs purchased in this country. For drugs purchased by mail or through the internet, the plan may require accreditation by the Internet and Mailorder Pharmacy Accreditation Commission (IMPAC) or similar organization. The department of prevention, assistance, transition, and health access shall establish a website and prepare written information to offer guidance to Vermont residents seeking information about ordering prescription drugs through the mail or otherwise from a participating Canadian pharmacy The bill calls for a study of the feasibility of providing discounted prescription drugs to Vermont’s most vulnerable patient populations through the use of the federal 340B drug discount program. The bill provides for an expansion of the Healthy Vermonters program, known as the “Healthy Vermonters Plus”program, for Vermonters without adequate coverage for prescription drugs. The names of drug manufacturers and labelers who do and do not enter into rebate agreements under pharmacy discount plans are public information. The commissioner shall establish, by rule, a process to resolve discrepancies in rebate amounts claimed by manufacturers, labelers, pharmacies, and the department. The Healthy Vermonters dedicated fund is established to receive revenue from manufacturers and labelers who pay rebates The bill provides for the appointment of a medical care advisory committee to advise on health care and medical services, consistent with the requirements of federal law. The medical care advisory committee shall be given an opportunity to participate in policy development and program administration for Medicaid and for the VHAP and VScript programs. The bill provides that the department of prevention, assistance, transition, and health access shall establish the Vermont health access plan (VHAP) to provide health care coverage for uninsured or underinsured low income Vermonters. The bill provides that the department of banking, insurance, securities, and health care administration shall study and propose the development of an insurance plan for small businesses in Vermont. The bill provides for a medical malpractice study committee to study issues related to medical malpractice actions and insurance, including whether and how caps on damages in medical malpractice actions would affect insurance costs for Vermont health care providers. The bill provides that the commissioner of banking, insurance, securities, and health care administration shall prepare and submit reports on subjects to include the managed behavioral health care organizations task force and health care budget projections.
Then please cite enacted laws. Politicians submit jackassed bills they know won’t pass all the time and for all sorts of reasons.
For Jodi
Virginia SB 216 SB 216 strikes the previously scheduled increases in the medical malpractice recovery cap that were to occur in 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. Current law provides, pursuant to the struck language, for the $1.5 million cap to increase by $50,000 each year from 2000 to 2006 and to increase by $75,000 in 2007 and 2008. Pursuant to this provision, the last increase would be $50,000 in 2004. The bill also establishes a $500,000 limitation on noneconomic damage awards in medical malpractice suits, i.e., pain and suffering awards. This provision also provides that, for the purposes of applying this limitation, future noneconomic damages will not be discounted to present value. Further, if separate awards are rendered for past and future noneconomic damages and the combined awards exceed $500,000, the future noneconomic damages will be reduced first. Juries will not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. “Noneconomic damages” includes physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and other related nonpecuniary losses.
Virginia SB 601 SB 601 establishes a $250,000 limitation on noneconomic damage awards in medical malpractice suits including pain and suffering awards. This provision also provides that, for the purposes of applying this limitation, future noneconomic damages will not be discounted to present value. Further, if separate awards are rendered for past and future noneconomic damages and the combined awards exceed $250,000, the future noneconomic damages will be reduced first. Juries will not be informed about the maximum award for noneconomic damages. “Noneconomic damages” includes physical and emotional pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairment, mental anguish, disfigurement, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, and other related nonpecuniary losses. The bill also allows periodic payments of future damages where the amount of the future damage is more than $50,000. In addition, the defendant is allowed to introduce evidence of reimbursement that the plaintiff obtained for expenses related to the injury.
Washington HB 2804 HB 2804, as amended on February 2, 2004, states that in all actions for damages, the entities to whom fault may be attributed shall be limited to the claimants, defendants, and third-party defendants who are parties to the action and any entities released by the claimant. The amendments clarify time limits for bringing a claim against a health care provider, add an eight year “statute of repose” and clarify applicability of actions involving persons under the age of eighteen. The bill exempts a hospital from liability for a health care provider’s acts or omissions under so-called “apparent agency” or “ostensible agency” theories as long as the health care provider is properly credentialed by the hospital and does not perform services that are an essential function of the hospital. A hospital is liable if the health care provider is an agent of the hospital and the act or omission of the health care provider occurred while the health care provider was acting within the course of the health care provider’s agency with the hospital. In an action against an individual health care provider, the plaintiff must file a certificate of merit at the time of commencing the action and executed by a health care provider whose license, certification, or registration is substantially the same as the defendant. The bill also establishes a commission on noneconomic damages, whose purpose is to determine whether an advisory schedule can be developed to increase the predictability and proportionality of settlements and awards for noneconomic damages in actions for injuries resulting from health care. The bill provides for the membership procedures of the commission.
Washington HB 2991 HB 2991 states that in an action or arbitration for damages for injury or death occurring as a result of health care, or arranging for the provision of health care, the total amount of noneconomic damages may not exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars.
Washington SB 6645 SB 6645 provides that a coordinated quality improvement program may share information and documents, including complaints and incident reports, created specifically for, and collected and maintained by a coordinated quality improvement committee or committees or boards with one or more other coordinated quality improvement programs for the improvement of the quality of health care services rendered to patients and the identification and prevention of medical malpractice. Information and documents disclosed by one coordinated quality improvement program to another coordinated quality improvement program and any information and documents created or maintained as a result of the sharing of information and documents are not subject to the discovery process and confidentiality shall be respected. The bill provides that licensing fees for health care professionals and facilities may be increased by 1 percent as a patient safety fee, which must be dedicated to patient safety and medical error reduction efforts. Also, 1 percent of the present value of the settlement or verdict in any action for damages based upon injuries resulting from health care shall be deducted from the settlement or verdict as a patient safety fee. The bill also provides that all health maintenance organizations must annually report to the commissioner certain information regarding malpractice settlements, awards, or payments as a result of a claim or action for damages alleged to have been caused by a hospital’s negligence. The bill also sets forth limitations on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases.
Wyoming HB 204 HB 204 addresses noneconomic medical damages payments. This bill creates the noneconomic medical damages payments account, and authorizes payments of excessive noneconomic medical damages awards against physicians.
Wyoming HB 1007 HB 1007, as amended on July 13, 2004, limits health care providers liability for noneconomic damages.
Wyoming SB 93 SB 93 provides for a waiver of governmental immunity for specified contract health care providers providing services for state institutions and county jails. This bill modifies limitations on damages and provides corresponding coverage under the local government and state self-insurance programs.
Wyoming SB 1002 (HB 1002) SB 1002 authorizes a study of medical errors and malpractice and the creation of a system to compensate victims of medical errors. It specifies the duties of the Wyoming health care commission in conducting the study and requires reports and recommendations.
Wyoming SB 1007 SB 1007, as amended on July 13, 2004, limits health care providers liability for noneconomic damages.
Wyoming SJR 1001 SJR 1001 addresses amending the Wyoming Constitution to modify the prohibition against the legislature limiting the amount of damages that may be recovered for causing personal injury or death of any person.
Wyoming SJR 1003 SJR 1003, as amended on July 14, 2004, proposes to amend the Wyoming Constitution to modify the prohibition against the legislature limiting the amount of damages that may be recovered for causing personal injury or death of any person. This bill also states that any section of this constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, for any civil action where a person alleges that a health care provider’s act or omission in the provision of health care resulted in death or injury, the legislature may limit the amount to be recovered from the health care provider for noneconomic loss resulting from the death or injury.
But I like fish and chips!
Eh, Liberal, it’s not like anyone has managed any actual productive dialogue; it’s just been ignoring what people have to say and talking past each other. As Jodi just asked (and she is not the first to ask this question in this thread), where or how do folks draw the line between ‘freedoms’ and ‘things that should be illegal’ (you, in fact, are I think the only person to actually say where you come down on this issue).
And, no one has addressed the fact that due to the fact that our laws are mutable, there will always be something that can be improved about our government (as is the case everywhere). Does that mean we live in a shit-hole? That we are not a free people?
We can shout all day about what we perceive to be unjust laws or unjust applications of laws, but the right and ability (and duty) to change those laws we deem unjust is the foundation of our government and is where the truth in ‘land of the free’ lies.
Jodi, if you want more references on other subjects, let me know. Although I doubt people are happy looking through such lengthy posts, but you asked.
LIBERAL –
First, the FBI does not decide what the scop of the PATRIOT ACT is and, just like any other law enforcement agency, they can be sued for exceeding their authority under it and violating a suspect’s constitutional rights. Second, existing criminal law can be used to “collect information about innocent people” as well – if the investigation is based on probable cause and the suspect turns out to be innocent. Third, the documents you link to (at least some of them) explicitly provide that “in general terms FISA deals with ‘foreign powers’ and ‘agents of foreign powers’ and the fundamental requirement of the Court’s granting a FISA application is probable cause to believe that the proposed subject of surveillance or search is a foreign power or an agent thereof . . . . U.S. persons meet the ‘agent of a foreign power’ criteria if they engage in certain activities for or on behalf of a foreign power which involve, or may involve, certain criminal acts.” Fourth, I don’t find you link to a site that in turn links to another page that in turn links to a bunch of dense PDF files to be terribly helpful. But you did notice that the very link you cited to concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of these very provisions, right? So they’re hardly “vanished before our eyes,” they are asserted to be worthy of protection and that in turn is being argued in a court of law, which is precisely the way the system is supposed to work.
Yep, that’s what the “Gay Today” link says, all right. There’s no evidence that it is accurate, however, since there’s no indication of what “longstanding restrictions” they’re talking about, how rewriting those restrictions infringes on some particular right, what right that may be, how the FBI can “freely infiltrate” places of worship, or why they would not have been able to that before without offending anyone’s rights. The quote doesn’t even make sense; you have no right to privacy in an online chat room or a message board, so why would the FBI need to re-write “longstanding restrictions” in order to allow its agents to monitor such places? I assume they’ve been monitoring them right along. What right is being rolled back if they are?
I can google, I’m a great googler, but seeing as how this is your argument and my time is as valuable as yours, I think I’ll just let you do the work. And I’m happy to address the concerns in the third link, but I’m obviously not going to address all of them when you haven’t. Portions of the Patriot Act are troubling, but it is subject to constitutional challenge just like any other law – and it’s being challenged right now, on a number of fronts. It’s passage and application hardly indicates that the rights of U.S. citizens are vanishing before our very eyes. To the contrary, the legal challenges it now faces are proof that our system is working precisely as it was intended to.
NYCTEA, I did in fact miss your last post, but luckily it isn’t requiring much time to address. You do not have the right to get oral contraceptives over the counter; they are not yet OTC drugs. How is refusing to make an exception to this rule for emergency contraception infringing on some right you currently have? You do not generally have the right to have a doctor who is not your treating physician write you a prescription for anything. How is refusing to make an exception to this rule for emergency contraception infringing on some right you currently have?You do not have the right to have a pharmacist give you prescription drugs without first having seen a doctor who gave you a prescription. How is refusing to make an exception to this rule for emergency contraception infringing on some right you currently have? How does a resolution urging another body to do something infringe on some right you currently have? You know the legal effect of a resolution, right? None.
More importantly – these are BILLS, not LAWS. Do you understand the difference between a bill and a law? Do you understand that a bill has no legal effect on any right of any kind that any person has – not one, not ever – until such time as it is passed and becomes effective as a law? Hello?
Thanks for recognizing my sincerity on this matter. I agree with Thomas Jefferson that “No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.” Every law that restrains us in some other way is one more loss of liberty.
Fuck you, Jodi. You asked for three, I gave you three. And now you want to move the goalpost. I even linked you to the NC Council of Churches list of concerns, and your response basically is that you don’t want to click it. You’re a lemming who deserves to lose freedom. It is too precious a pearl to be in your hands. My only regret is that vigilant people must suffer for your reckless irresponsibility as a citizen.
LIB, I’m not trying to pick an argument with you, and so although I’m really on the fence as to whether you meant this to be as patronizing as it sounds, I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt. So I say this with all due respect: Do not patronize me. You don’t know the details of my job, but I believe you know I’m a lawyer who frequently works on issues of constitutional law; I do not need you to urge me to “google the Patriot act” and “get informed” as if it’s some obscure Kurdish goat-herding regulation I would never have heard of.
NYCTEA –
I asked for LAWS. Because unpassed bills mean NOTHING! They do not – cannot – infringe your rights in any way, much less make them vanish! For the love of Pete, what part of that do you not get? You can give me a list of House and Senate bills as long as your arm (and, hey, you have) and it means jack-shit if none of them have become law. Have any of them passed? I don’t know; do you?