TorteDeForm

Kia Franklin

What if we didn’t have access to the courts?

What if we didn't have any access to the civil justice system? I know we spend a lot of time talking about the limitations of our courts and the harmful effect of tort "reform," and I think that's important and necessary. But what if we didn't even have a semblance of fairness in our court system? What if the tortdeformers were able to just blatantly refuse to hear the claims of victims of corporate abuse?

We'd have more outcomes like this one.

I think I'm too disgusted to write about this right now. Maybe I'll revisit it next week...

Kia Franklin: Author Bio | Other Posts
Posted at 2:35 PM, Oct 17, 2008 in Civil Justice | Consumer Rights | In the News | Increasing Safety | Product Liability | Tort Victim Tragedies
Permalink | Email to Friend


Comments

Kia: Where is the evidence or even the logic that overlawyering results in any additional safety? I have never seen any.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 17, 2008 11:25 PM

Kia: I am interested in your opinion of this verdict.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425326286

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 17, 2008 11:39 PM

SC - your case has been posted on several other sites, and it is a complete travesty of justice

My observations concerning the ADA and the various state equivalent acts:

1) the acts should be repealed in their entirety and then recrafted with plaintiff's legal fees entitlement (if they prevail) set at an hourly rate of 3 times minimum wage. That way all these pious lawyers who claim they are taking the case "on principle" can put their money where their mouth is (fat chance of that)

2) In recrafting these statutes , the plaintiff should need to prove they've been damaged (In California and several other states, this is not a necessary element)

3) I doubt that there were any professional people on the jury - if there weren't, then the Doctor's constitutional rights were impaired since he was not tried by a "jury of his peers"

4) As an aside, the jury in the case you cited should t immediately be institutionalized forever since they obviously lack the mental capability to exist on their own in society

No doubt Kia thinks this was a just result

Posted by: Avenger | October 18, 2008 9:12 AM

If Kia is smart, she will say, the lack of understanding resulted in a fat face from overuse of steroids. However, they communicated by writing, by email, by family translation. The latter now violates a regulation, making the claim a per se claim. (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Office of Minority Health. National Standards of Cultural and Linguistically Appropriate Services in Health Care. Washington, DC: United States Government Printing Office, 2000.)

The Office of Civil Rights allows patients to waive the professional translation. All medical offices should require consent to use alternative communication or family members or else refer the patient elsewhere. (Department of Health and Human Services. Discrimination Affecting Limited English Proficient Persons. Guidance to Federal Financial Assistance Recipients Regarding Title VI Prohibition Against National Origin. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Civil Rights, 2003.)

More good stuff in this nice review:

http://theoncologist.alphamedpress.org/cgi/content/full/13/5/586#B4

The verdict enforces an unfunded mandate. The doctor should send the bill for $400K to the US Government.

As to the fat face, I would like to see a new contributory negligence defense, the Duty to Google. The latter has eliminated informed consent, failure to warn. It has made all plaintiffs into learned intermediaries.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | October 18, 2008 9:46 AM