St. Cloud Personal Injury Lawyer - Obama

Government Contractor's Rape Case Exposes Senators

Mike Bryant — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 09:19:00 GMT

It was nice to see recently elected and finally seated Minnesota Senator Al Franken get his first amendment passed last month. Unfortunately, it was about a very weighty topic. The amendment to the 2010 Department of Defense Appropriations Act prohibiting the government from contracting with companies who require their employees to agree to resolve certain claims, such as sexual assault, through arbitration. The amendment arises from the testimony of Jamie Leigh Jones that she was drugged and gang raped by her co-workers while working for a contractor in Iraq. When she reported the rape to her supervisor, she was locked in a metal shipping crate. She only got out of Iraq by calling her father, who got in touch with their local Congressman in Texas. When she attempted to sue her employer KBR, Inc., a subsidiary of Haliburton, she was told that she had to resolve her claim through arbitration in accordance with her employment contract. Mr. Franken's amendment was to ensure that the government does not do business with a company who would force its employees to arbitrate such a case as rape.

The bill passed but it was voted against by 30 Republican Senators. The Daily show did a good job of calling the 30 out and pointing out their hypocrisy.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-14-2009/rape-nuts

After watching this, spend a little time thinking about why these 30 voted as they did. Who are they protecting and who's side are they on? This week, this same group has been leading the floor fight against the Health Care Bill. They have been calling lawyers names, they have been calling for damage caps, and they have claimed that the change isn't for the best. Ask again who's side they are on? It's never been the consumer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Defensive Medicine: There Is Someone On The Defense All Right

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:07:00 GMT

The conservative blogs are loaded with talk of tort reform. We here at the Injuryboard continue to write about it. Guess the claim that no one is talking about it, is not only false, but intentionally misleading. It's interesting, how many of these posts get a comment with a link to the town hall site, which is claimed to have all of the answers. I spent some time looking at the link and it really does defy logic.

There is a section on defensive medicine and the very next section is entitled: "There Is No Proof That Threats of Litigation Deters Injuries" . What?????????????????? The reality is that while they use some facts, they stretch those facts and push frivolous arguments to come to a conclusion that fits for them. Even their damages charts distort the numbers to include extra fees that I would guess is the defensive medicine that actually the plaintiff was injured from. I would expect the executive compensation or medical charges costs includes even less for the injured consumer.

If you still have questions spend a little time with the American Association for Justices paper on the issue of the defensive medicine claim.

Ask the tough questions:

What tests are doctors doing that are actually not needed?

Have they ever found cancer or other medical life threatening issues with those tests?

Who got the money for those tests?

Why are so many people still dying in American hospitals?

Would more tests actually reduce the number of claims and keep more consumers alive?

My guess is that anyone claiming the existence of these tests really won't want to answer these questions. Mainly, because it simply doesn't happen and if it does they are involved in FRAUD. But, let's keep talking about it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Health Care By The Numbers

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:58:00 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office released a report this past month that found: wait for it, that if we had tort reform money will be saved. Shocking, if you stop making the negligent and the grossly negligent pay for the damage they do, they get to keep their money. Those reports don't surprise me , nor do they scare me as a trial lawyer. Because, the question keeps going back to: saves money for whom?

The only way you get savings from the system is at best indirect. That the Medical Malpractice Insurance companies will do something that they have in the past been reluctant to do, which is lower premiums, and as a result, those savings will be passed on to the health Insurance companies, who will then pass those savings onto the consumers. The other potential savings will be that all of these doctors who are prescribing unnecessary and fraudulent tests will stop doing this and there will be savings there. This is a lot of very questionable gate keepers who we are expecting to do the right thing for others and not just for themselves.

But let's look at the CBO's numbers. Surprise, they are exactly what trial lawyers have been saying; one half of one percent of the whole system. Yes, this is the shocking number that some Republicans are claiming can be used to fix the whole medical reform mess. Now, I'll admit that 11 billion dollars is a lot of money, but what does it compare to?

There is the report from Washington University, which found that in 2007 there was $2.7 trillion (yes that's a trillion) spent on health care overall. So to start with, we are really talking about numbers that need to be compared, and not just blow horned by town meeting paid infiltrators.

The same report found that there is also $68 billion that is lost in fraud. That number works out to the fraud being 80% by the medical providers ( the ones that we want to give the savings back), 10% by consumers, and balance by others such as the insurance companies themselves.

Let's look at the Insurance numbers as the American Association for Justice did recently,they found:

Today, while premiums and health care costs skyrocket, malpractice insurers have average profits higher than 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

The key findings of the report, which analyzes the annual financial statements of the 10 largest U.S. medical malpractice insurers, include:

The average profit of these insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period.

Malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent.

Medical malpractice insurers have underestimated profits and overestimated losses, creating overblown insurance “crises” to garner support for limiting patients’ legal rights. Then years later after the “crises” abated, revised filings show the companies were never in the financial peril they claimed.

After overestimating losses, insurers have since reported that losses over the last five years have been approximately 13.5 percent lower than initially reported.

By overestimating losses, companies have underestimated profits. Insurers averaged about 5.1 percent higher profits last year and 12.4 percent higher profits two years ago; these levels of profits will likely rise as upward revisions are made.

Medical negligence laws were passed under false pretenses. Overblown reported losses were used by the insurance industry to justify new measures restricting the rights of those injured by medical negligence.

Yep, there is gobs of money being made, and I would bet they are funneling right into those U S Chamber ads that are calling for tort reform and fighting against a system they just love to gouge.

There are far better ways to fix this system and to pay for it without changes that deny people their constitutional protections.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Attacks On The Health Care Plan: Looks Like They Were Planned Out

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:58 GMT

Are you torn with all of the health care debates? What is being talked about and what isn't? Who is behind what and what do the leaders of our country really want to do? Who has bought off who and why is anyone saying that they would rather keep things the way they are?

I've talked to enough people about this issue to know that many people are confused about why this is such a battle. Why the plan isn't just to sit down and to work something out and get a plan put together. It's been interesting to discuss with people the role that trial lawyers are playing in the issue and also the roles of the insurance companies. I, like many of the people here at the Injuryboard, have been out front talking about the issues every chance we get.

What was illuminating was to run across the game plan of the opposition to any change. Rolling Stone recently uncovered this interesting memo:

The 10 Rules For The Stopping Of The "WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” Of Health care

(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “health care system.” From now on, health care is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford health care, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a health care crisis.”

(3) “Time” is the government health care killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of health care than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the health care you need – could. Delayed care is denied care.”

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ health care plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of health care. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government health care because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.

(5) The health care denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run health care system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run health care, politicians make YOUR health care decisions.THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”

(6) Health care quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the health care they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government health care system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”

(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats” will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of health care is still public enemy number one on this issue – and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle health care better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford health care. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps health care patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this health care plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in health care that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading this list, it seems clear that there are a group of people who don't want to get anything done. The people who ran the country for eight years and put profits in front of people and drove many parts of the economy into the dirt. It is made up of people who scream capitalism all the way to the bailout window. People who need to either come to the table and talk sense or get out of the way and let those who care about the consumer put together something that will truly make a difference.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Minnesota Association For Justice's Statement On AP Medical Malpractice Poll

Mike Bryant — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:56:09 GMT

ASSOCIATED PRESS POLL: MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SUE FOR MEDICAL ERROR

Minnesota legal group says the AP poll oversimplifies the malpractice debate and ignores accountability of insurers and providers.

(Minneapolis, MN)- The Minnesota Association for Justice (MNAJ) responded to results released today from an Associated Press (AP) poll which claims that a majority in the U.S. approve of stricter controls on individuals seeking accountability for medical malpractice as inaccurate, misleading and does little to enhance the debate on health care reform.

Michael A. Bryant an attorney practicing in Minnesota and the current President of the Minnesota Association for Justice said the poll, conducted by Stanford University and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for the AP, “asks the question in a way that the respondent is to believe that limits on malpractice accountability would substantially lower consumer insurance and health care costs in the United States. The problem is there is simply no evidence to support either outcome.”

Claims that restricting legal remedies for medical malpractice would lower insurance rates for physicians and hospitals is in direct conflict with data released last month by the Medical Liability Monitor, a respected annual publication of malpractice rates across the country. The Medical Liability Monitor’s research show that there is no relation to rates between states that cap damage awards and states that don’t—and in many cases states that limit damages actually have significantly higher premiums.
“This poll distracts from concrete facts that show that limiting our ability to be fully compensated for negligent sub-standard medical care will not result in insurance premiums reductions,” Bryant added.

Minnesota does not limit the amount of actual damages a jury can award, and in 2008, ranked 50th lowest in medical malpractice insurance premiums. Minnesota’s courts have seen a 40% decline in medical malpractice filings, while leading the nation in many health care outcome measures.

“As the debate on health care reform heats up in the coming days, policy makers must embrace a comprehensive set of solutions that focus on quality care, patient safety, accountability for providers and insurers, and protection of all patients in the health care system.” Bryant stated.

The Minnesota Association for Justice is a professional association of attorneys who represent Minnesotans wrongfully harmed or injured in person, property or human rights. MNAJ defends the rights guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Minnesota, foremost among them the right to a trial by jury and advocates for public policy to enhance consumer rights and protection.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

98,000 Reasons Against Tort Reform

Mike Bryant — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 15:48:07 GMT

This is a real story. The Insurance Companies don't want Juries to hear about it.

98000reasons.org: Blake Fought from American Association for Justice.

Justice requires that people have a remedy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Guess What: The U S Chamber TV Ad Attack Really Did Need A Closer Look

Mike Bryant — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 15:27:00 GMT

Yesterday, I wrote about the U S Chamber's hypocritical attack on TV ads. What I didn't cover was a closer look at what was underlying the press release which went out to all of their conservative outlets. The numbers show that the US Chamber of Commerce study tracked spending on ads and actually shows that the spending has remained almost unchanged since 2006. There was a jump earlier in the decade. But get this, the number of spots have actually dropped since 2006.

So google these stories and you will find the implications that :

Oh my god lawyers are adding to the claims
Look lawyers know the gravy train is ending and are going all out
Look see this is the problem.

It's kind of funny how many of the "comments" actually say the exact same thing. But, the underlying support just isn't there. Yes, the study says the numbers are going down. So when do we hear that apology or maybe the turning of their growth theories on their head? Are the lower numbers actual proof that there is no problem?

The American Association for Justice, also pointed out that no matter the ad numbers the the National Center for State Courts shows an 8 percent decrease from 1997 to 2006 in states' civil caseload related to medical malpractice. "As usual, the Chamber is willing to bargain away injured patients' legal rights to protect the profits of their insurance and drug company financiers," Ray De Lorenzi, a spokesman for the association, said in a statement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Great Website For Information About Our Food

Mike Bryant — Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:21:00 GMT

If you spend some time looking around the Injuryboard website, you will find hundreds of articles about various issues with food. The peanut butter salmonella issue was covered from a number of angles. If you look under the toxic substances tab, you will see the many different issues we specifically have looked at from the Minnesota perspective. Usually, there is death or serious illness involved with the stories.

But, today it is great to be looking at a great website that hopefully will help cut down on the need for future stories. Yet another example of what a difference an administration makes with the way the FDA is handled. We are seeing signs of actual action on food from overseas, forcing companies to pay for hurting people, and information that helps the consumer, instead of taking rights away.

The site has email alerts and an RSS feeder, which will make it easier for people to get information. Hopefully, more and more people will find the site and use it for vital health information.

If you suffer from food poisoning, you need to get immediate medical care. If it continues or there are long term affects, you should contact an attorney concerning the problem. Early investigation can include the collection of samples, checking for health alerts, and the proper notifying of those who caused the problem.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Do We Already Have Death Panels?

Mike Bryant — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:12:00 GMT

There was a spat of complaints that were being thrown out there that the new Health Insurance legislation included death panels. It seems that anyone who can read has been able to find that the basic claim is untrue and that any broader reading only allows for doctors and patents to consult and make decisions together outside insurance companies.

But what do we have right now? The New York Times recently looked at the issue and found some scary things. They covered the story of Eric De La Cruz, of Las Vegas, who was diagnosed with dilated cardiomyopathy. He couldn't find coverage because of a pre-existing condition. instead he had to post a deposit of at least $150,000 to be evaluated and placed on a heart transplant waiting list. The cost of all of his care was nearly $1 million dollars for a transplant and subsequent hospital care. His sister, Veronica De La Cruz, through a public campaign raised nearly $1 million in less than two weeks. He was able to enter the University of Southern California health system and was placed on the 'high-priority transplant list. But, as his sister pointed out after the " all the delays and denials", too much time had passed and he became too sick for the procedure" and died on July 4.

Just one story, but an example of the system that we have right now. A system that denies coverage and delays claim after claim. Now , I would agree that there isn't a panel in hangman masks making the decision, but the reality is that there should be outrage with what people are not getting right now.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Let's Talk Tort Deform

Mike Bryant — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:02:00 GMT

It's been interesting to read story after story where the tort deformers keep claiming that no one wants to talk about tort reform. Funny, seems like it's a topic everywhere. The next sentence is usually from the attack book of Bush/Rove to blame the greedy trial lawyers. Sometimes it is couched in an anonymous frivolous battering of the injured claimants, but either way it's vicious attacks on what is a constitutional right. A replacement for a punitive eye-for-an-eye system.

But, let's talk about tort deform. They want damage caps. The cost benefit analysis on human lives that allows the wrongdoer to know what their risk is. Should they do the right thing or just take the chance and at most it will cost them $250,000? There's been a series of past product liability cases where it was proven that the cost of how many people would be killed was factored in as a cost of doing business. Yep, there is greed involved in the equation alright.

I was asked today at church what tort reform I thought would be acceptable to get the health care bill passed. The question came from a well meaning person who just wants to see the right thing happen in health care and who hears all the claims that the trial lawyers are standing in the way of it getting done. The thing is, we aren't.

I'm quite convinced that there isn't a single vote to be gained from any tort reform. the Republicans don't want to pass a bill, never have and never will. The elimination of the tort system probably wouldn't bring them over. So this may really be a wasted debate. But, for the public , we do need to have the discussion, because there are real people who care and see this as something other than a political football.

I offer up the Minnesota system. It has no caps. It has an expert affidavit system. I can sue almost anyone for anything, if I have a good faith reason to do it, but for a doctor, I need another medical professional in the same field to OK it first. Not just with a report, but with a sworn affidavit. Minnesota has got some of the lowest premiums in the country, a low number of claims and best of all, a great health care system. So if we are going to look at a state , let's look at something that works. A system that protects the consumers.

It's a system that would be a change for much of the country. It would show that we are serious about getting this bill passed and I predict it will still not get any votes from the other side. Why? Well, because it's really only politics to many of them. They are bought and paid for by the insurance companies, and they will claim it didn't go far enough. My favorite response here will be : "You can get an expert doctor to say anything". I think that's true with just about any group, and would suggest that is what has been getting the opponents by so far.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant