Jordan Speaks Out - "Blog On"
September 8, 2009
Here's an Article which clarifies that Tort Deform has no reason to be
injected into the Health Care Reform Debate since it only hurts victims and
there is no economic truth to the argument that Medical Negligence cases
increase Health Care Costs:
Medical malpractice reform won't slash health care costs
JORDO
June 16, 2009
The following is a statement from American Association for Justice President Les Weisbrod regarding President Obama’s address to the American Medical Association:
“It’s clear America’s health care system is in crisis. Over 40 million people are without health insurance and costs are skyrocketing. President Obama is right that health care reform is needed now and patient safety should be the top priority.
“Empirically-based practice guidelines, developed by independent experts, is an idea we can support, as long as it does not lower quality or standards of care. Instead, these guidelines should lead to greater patient safety.
“According to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die every year because of medical errors. Eliminating these errors, not further hurting the victims of negligence, is where lawmakers should focus their attention. By taking away the rights of people to hold wrongdoers accountable, the quality of health care will suffer tremendously.
“However, the notion that ‘defensive medicine’ is leading to higher health care costs is not supported by empirical data or academic literature. Recent news reports, CBO and GAO analyses, and statements from administration officials have shown that physicians will over-test and over-treat purely for financial reasons, unrelated to liability concerns.
“Limiting the legal rights of injured patients will do nothing to lower health care costs or aid the uninsured. We will work over the coming weeks and months to educate members of Congress and the administration on how to best protect victims of medical negligence.”
JORDO
June 12, 2009
Elected judges must disqualify themselves from cases involving people who spent exceptionally large sums to put them on the bench, the Supreme Court ruled on June 8, 2009 in a 5-to-4 decision.
The decision, the first to say the Constitution’s due process clause has a role to play in policing the role of money in judicial elections, ordered the chief justice of the West Virginia Supreme Court to recuse himself from a $50 million case against a coal company whose chief executive had spent $3 million to elect him. The Supreme Court based it's decision on the violation of the Due Process Clause of the Constitution, finding it fundamentally unfair to the party who did not contribute to the judge's election.
JORDO
May 27, 2009
Here's something I haven't been able to say for a long time - Good News is on the way from Congress.
Bills are circulating in the United States Senate and House of Representatives to
correct the horrific injustice of last year's United States Supreme Court ruling in Reigel v. Medtronic, which harshly denied state juries the opportunity to hear personal injury cases brought by victims of unreasonably dangerous products. The Reigel Decision incorrectly interpreted the 1975 law which created the Federal Drug Administration, by ruling that state courts were pre-empted from conducting trials where the product in question had been approved by the FDA. Senator Kennedy was rightfully outraged at the Reigel Decision since he had sponsored the original Act creating the FDA, and his bill never intended to deprive victims of the right to trial, especially with evidence which the FDA had never received from the product manufacturers when seeking initial approval of the product.
When the vote comes up, be sure to call your Congressman and Senators to support victim's rights!
JORDO