Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Worker's Compensation - from no-fault to presumption of fault

Today I read that Republican lawmakers in Wisconsin are fast-tracking a bill that would effectively end Worker's Compensation in Wisconsin - which has been a model for the country and one of the first states to enact such a law.       (

This bill would change the system from a no-fault system for the employee, to the presumption being the employee was at fault and the employee would have the burden to prove he or she was not a fault in order to obtain worker's comp benefits.

This guts the purpose of Wisconsin's long standing worker's comp law, and will result in minimal, if any, justice for injured employees.

In addition, the bill would allow an employer to send an injured employee to a doctor of the employer's choice (hint - they will help deny your claim); allow the employer to not pay wages while employee is recovering by firing the employee; and require the potential employee, when they are hired, about prior medical conditions or risk being denied benefits later on.

People may not care about the dismantling of the Government Accountability Board or doing away with John Doe, but every citizen in this state, every employee should care that their rights to compensation and justice are being obliterated if this bill were to pass, in any shape or form.

Our current political leaders clearly do not care at all about their constituents.

Friday, August 14, 2015

Statute of Limitations, Immunity, and less compensation for dog bite victims

First up today, I would like to discuss 2015 Assembly Bill 223 / 2015 Senate Bill 149, which were introduced in May, but are now gathering momentum.

This bill would reduce the Statute of Limitations in contract automobile accident cases involving injury claims under Uninsured or Underinsured Motorist Coverage, or for property damage claims.  The current Statute of Limitations for most claims involving contracts is 6 years from the date of injury.  The Wisconsin Legislature would like to reduce the Statute of Limitations to 3 years from the date of injury or loss.

In standard automobile accident cases (cases where you would sue another party and not your own insurance company, as mentioned above) the Statue of Limitations, for injury or death to an individual(s) is 3 years from the date of the injury or loss.  The bill would keep the 3 year Statue of Limitations for injury claims, but would change the Statute of Limitations to 2 years for a wrongful death claim.

Other than the obvious -- the legislature wanting to potentially bar claims by people who wait too long to hire an attorney and file suit and bar legitimate claims -- I cannot seem to find the point in changing the Statute of Limitations.  Although, I guess that would be the exact point.

I have never heard anyone complain the Statutes of Limitations currently in place are too long and need to be changed.   Though, I guess someone has said something to their legislator if a bill is now in the works.  Or maybe it is Governor Walker in the background, again urging "Tort Reform" and his little minions doing his bidding.

At any rate, reducing the Statute of Limitations on these types of claims will definitely not benefit the injured party.  They could be barred by waiting too long.  A lawsuit could have to be filed to preserve the Statute of Limitations on a claim that would normally settle within the 3 or 6 years Statute, thus increasing needless litigation and further clogging already congested court dockets.  Not to mention, added expense for the plaintiff's lawyer in terms of costs on the case (which, if a case settles or a plaintiff wins at trial, come out of the injured individual's money in the end).

Also, if a Uninsured or Underinsured claim has to be brought within 3 years, the same time limit as a personal injury claim against another party, that could potentially mean the underlying claim will be unable to be resolved in a prudent manner to allow an informed decision on whether or not a UM or UIM claim is actually necessary.  Again, this could lead to TWO concurrent lawsuits, in order to persevere the SOL, and my guess is the UM or UIM lawsuit would then have to be stayed in order for the personal injury lawsuit to play out and see whether a UM or UIM claim is actually needed.

Further, assuming after the first lawsuit a UM or UIM claim is needed, would the plaintiff have to provide a Vogt notice regarding the judgment rendered and allow the UM or UIM carrier to substitute funds or not, and then proceed?  I don't know.  What it probably will lead to is increased litigation over these vary issues, which seem not to be thought of or addressed at all by those proposing the bill.

I am sure more issues will arise, but these are my initial thoughts on the bill.

Moving on, I would now like to look at 2015 Senate Bill 131 - Immunity of Private Campgrounds.

The bill is straightforward: it grants ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY for a private campground, private campground owners or operators and any employees and agents of the private campground from civil liability for damage to property or for the DEATH or INJURY to an individual that is caused by or occurred during the use of the campground. The only exception is if the acts that caused injury or death were caused by a willful or wanton (intentional) act or an omission of the owner, operator, employee or agent.

This is just outrageous and absurd.  Unless someone working for the campground commits an intentional act or there is some sort of omission (failure to do something) no one owning, operating or working for the private campground can be sued for negligence of any kind.

That is immunity to not care, at all, not one bit, about the individuals who pay to use a private campground.  This is simply a bill to allow private campground owners to keep taking and making money, without any accountability or responsibility to the patrons.

Finally, very briefly, there is believed to be a bill in the works that would either eliminate double damages in dog bite cases or limit double damages to cases where there has been tow actual bites (not sure if this is specifically to the injured person during the attack or the dog has bitten 1 person or 2 people before the latest attack) and there is permanent damage to the individual.

All I can comment on it at this early stage is that it is another clear bill aimed at reducing or limiting compensation to injured individuals while alleviating responsibility on owners or dogs or dangerous animals and the insurers of those owners.

Tuesday, June 23, 2015

Medical Malpractice National Data Bank

Statistics are out, and payments issued to people injured by doctors are down for the 13th straight year, a incredible 44%.  Wisconsin had the fewest payments in the US per population:

The National Practitioner Data Bank information for 2014 came out last Friday.   The number of payments to people injured by doctor errors went down for the 13th year in a row.  Here are the numbers:

2001 - 15,898
2002 - 15,141
2003 - 15,124
2004 - 14,516
2005 - 13,613
2006 - 11,737
2007 - 11,256
2008 - 10,862
2009 - 10,783
2010 - 9,885
2011 - 9,780
2012 - 9,518
2013 - 9,447
2014 - 8,875

That represents a 44% drop in the number of payments from 2001 through 2014.

The following is the 2014 number of payments per population, ranking the states from the most number of payments to the least number of payments per population:


Rank    State    Population       Number of Payments  Payments per Population       
U.S.     319,425,019    8,875                           1:35,992
1.         NY      19,746,227      1,324                           1:14,914
2.         LA       4,649,676        246                              1:18,901
3.         PA       12,787,209      638                              1:20,043
4.         NJ        8,938,175        414                              1:21,590
5.         WV     1,850,326        83                                1:22,293
6.         KS       2,904,021        116                              1:25,035
7.         FL       19,893,297      755                              1:26,349
8.         RI        1,055,173        40                                1:26,379
9.         IN        6,596,855        245                              1:26,926
10.       NM      2,085,572        74                                1:28,183
11.       NH      1,326,813        44                                1:30,155
12.       ME      1,330,089        44                                1:30,229
13.       MA      6,745,408        220                              1:30,661         
14.       SD       853,175           26                                1:32,814
15.       OK      3,878,051        115                              1:33,722
16.       MT      1,023,579        30                                1:34,119
17.       MI       9,909,877        290                              1:34,172
18.       MD      5,976,407        163                              1:36,665
19.       CT       3,596,677        98                                1:36,701
20.       KY      4,413,457        119                              1:37,088
21.       MS      2,994,079        75                                1:39,921
22.       WY     584,153           14                                1:41,725
23.       MO      6,063,589        145                              1:41,818

24.       SC       4,832,482        112                              1:43,147
25.       AZ       6,731,484        153                              1:43,997
26.       DE       935,614           21                                1:44,553
27.       UT       2,942,902        66                                1:44,589
28.       NE       1,881,503        42                                1:44,798
29.       CA      38,802,500      861                              1:45,067
30.       GA      10,097,343      206                              1:49,016
31.       OR      3,970,239        79                                1:50,256
32.       IL        12,880,580      254                              1:50,711
33.       IA        3,107,126        54                                1:57,539
34.       WA     7,061,530        121                              1:58,360
35.       TN       6,549,352        112                              1:58,476
36.       AR      2,966,369        49                                1:60,538
37.       TX       26,956,958      407                              1:66,233
38.       OH      11,594,163      175                              1:66,252
39.       AK      736,732           11                                1:66,976
40.       ID        1,634,464        24                                1:68,103
41.       NV      2,839,099        41                                1:69,246
42.       CO      5,355,866        77                                1:69,557
43.       HI        1,419,561        20                                1:70,978
44.       VA      8,326,289        110                              1:75,694
45.       VT       626,562           8                                  1:78,320
46.       DC      658,893           7                                  1:94,128
47.       NC      9,943,964        102                              1:97,490
48.       AL       4,849,377        40                                1:121,234
49.       MN      5,457,173        39                                1:139,928
50.       ND      739,482           5                                  1:147,896
51.       WI       5,757,564        37                                1:155,610

As usual, Wisconsin had the fewest number of payments per population. 

Friday, March 27, 2015

Case Filings in 2014

No surprise here, but overall case filings are down for 2014 (for the 5th year in a row).  And no really big surprise, two of the lowest categories of tort for cases filed are products liability and medical malpractice.

Products liability had only 48 cases filed in 2014.

Medical malpractice had 84 cases filed in 2014.

Why the continued decline in tort case filings, particularly in product liability and medical malpractice?

Tort reformers will most likely say products are safer and frivolous claims are down.

As I have stated before, that simply is not true.  The legislature has pretty much made it impossible to sue for a defective product.

And medical malpractice claims are very costly to bring, almost always require a trial and an appeals process, and jurors have a hard time finding a doctor or hospital staff member negligent, even if all the evidence is to the contrary.

There is a reason you don't see ads for medical malpractice lawyers.  No one wants them, and only a handful of attorneys in the state actually take the cases.

Just like products defense lawyers, medical malpractice defense lawyers better be careful what they wish for, otherwise they are going to have to find a new practice area in order to have a job.

But, I have discussed these issues many times in my blog posts.  I suggest you read the great writing and research in the Journal Sentinel on these issues; the Watchdog series on medical malpractice in Wisconsin has been phenomenal.

Here is the link to the most recent in the series.

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

E-Filing of Lawsuits and Legal Papers

Electronic filing of lawsuits and other court documents has existed for Federal Courts for a long time.  Other states have used it for just as long, and some counties in Wisconsin have adopted it, but it is not mandatory yet, and paper copies can still be filed in the handful of Wisconsin courts that allow e-filing.  However, it may soon be mandatory in circuit courts of Wisconsin to e-file documents with the court, including the Complaint -- the action that starts a lawsuit.

A very interesting article was recently published in the New York Times regarding e-filing and how these electronic documents are being devoured by audiences all over the country and world -- audiences that ordinarily would never care about this stuff.  It is worth a read (link below) and as I will not discuss the article verbatim or in its entirety, it is worth reading to understand my points below.

Essentially, the article discusses the fact that cases that otherwise would not get much media attention, are being sensationalized well before the defendant files an answer and actual litigation takes place.  Because defendants have a specific time period to answer a complaint (20 days, or in Wisconsin in a civil court, 45 days), this gives people the chance to read accusations against a defendant and sensationalize the story.  The article mainly deals with discrimination or gender-related suits, as these Complaints are usually very specific and contain accusations that easily draw in readers and followers.  They are Complaints that are easy to sensationalize.

It is problematic.  On the one hand, the person (plaintiff) filing the suit has the upper-hand.  They get their story out first.  They are able to generate sympathy for their case, and a presumption that the defendant did something wrong.  (It should be noted that in both civil and criminal cases, the party bringing the action has the burden to prove the other party did something wrong).

On the other hand, the accusations may ruin the defendant before the defendant actually has a chance to defend him or herself, or a corporation to defend itself.  Public e-filing also essentially allows the plaintiff to try the case to the public (assuming the story gets picked up) before any litigation even begins and facts and evidence are discovered.

It can also be problematic in that, as the article points out, in a case where there should be a settlement, or at least negotiations, the defendant will refuse because the defendant wants his or her or its name cleared by a trial.  This may make the litigation process more adverse and both sides may end up spending lots of money for no reason.

As the article notes, further negative consequences for potential plaintiffs are that they do not want to sue because of the ridicule, especially in sex discrimination cases and gender-related suits, such a plaintiff may receive by the online community.  These insults and accusations will forever remain on the internet.  Think about lurid details in a divorce lawsuit.  Whether true or not, anytime a perspective employer or perspective significant other googles that person, this information will come up and may need to be explained.

Perhaps that is why I received an email from the Easter District of Wisconsin indicating that filings of civil documents can either be filed using "either a restricted to case participant" or "sealed and only available to the court designation."  Criminal filings will now be sealed documents only available to the court.  Perhaps this is an attempt by the Eastern District to keep prying eyes away from the online community -- a way to keep lawsuits not of state or national interest "private" until there are actual court hearings on matters -- which any member of the public is welcome to attend, but no one ever really does except for the really big lawsuits and prosecutions you see in the news.

(I say private because no one has much interest in the majority of cases filed with the courts, but court documents, unless ordered by the court, are available for copy and inspection by the public).

Time will tell.  Maybe it is a good thing in this digital age when people post lots of personal stuff or just stuff on the internet.  (I am no exception).

I think what the article touches upon, but does not really flush out, is the fact that when an online community finds lawsuit information out, they tend to devour it and spread it, and as they say, it "becomes viral."  Once lawsuits were a story to develop and play out before a judge and jury, if need be.  Otherwise they were more private affairs between attorneys and clients.

Essentially, e-filing can allow a lawsuit to be tried to the public before a defendant can even respond.  Kind of like Nancy Grace calling every person a criminal or a rapist or kidnapper or a murderer on her show, even before an investigation into a suspect and even before all the evidence is adduced at trial.

According to people like her, there is no "innocent until proven guilty."  Her motto, and many people who watch programming like that is "guilty, unless found innocent, but then still guilty."

Maybe increased e-filing, where no information is allowed to be protected or redacted, renders the same logic for the public, and ultimately, the possible jurors in the trial.  In the civil arena, it would be "negligent" from the minute the lawsuit is filed, including if there is a settlement, confidential or not.  That is, of course, unless there is a trial and the jury finds "not negligent."

Monday, February 23, 2015

When Bad Things Happen to Patients ... And Discouraging Lawsuits

It has been a while since my last post, so, hello again reader (or hopefully and optimistically, readers).

I would like to continue on with my posts regarding medical malpractice lawsuits.  In the most recent article I read, the publisher again contradicts itself about "exploding" medical malpractice lawsuits.  However, the article then says "fewer than 10% of those patients and families will actually file a malpractice lawsuit."  The reason:  the author hypothesizes that it is the patient's or families perception of the doctor or staff.  Essentially, if they like the doctor or staff, or have been with a particular doctor for a number of years, they will not sue no matter how negligent the doctor was or how injured the person is.  Interesting theory.  Maybe has some weight.

Though, the article then gets into, as I have touched upon before, the real reason, I believe, for the lack of lawsuits against doctors.  Simply, unless the injury is significant, it is cost prohibitive to bring a lawsuit.  As a defense attorney notes in the article, "if the case is meritorious but the recovery is likely to be small, they [injured party] don't sue because they can't find a lawyer willing to take the case."

Exactly.  Injured people have essentially been legislated out of otherwise viable claims.  Politicians case be smart, and those drafting their agendas as well.  They have not "closed" the doors to justice - an injured person's day in court.  Instead, they make it cost an incredible sum for an injured person to pursue a case, which effects a lawyer's ability to take the case, thus ensuring no lawsuit.  It is a prohibition on access to justice -- just not an overt one.

These articles from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are enlightening in regards to the amount of money the Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Fund has to defend lawsuits, and to the problems faced by injured parties, along with a complete lack of access to the courts, in Wisconsin.

Or this article that show Governor Walker's attempt to essentially shape the Wisconsin Supreme Court to do his biding.

And, this is not just an access to justice for medical malpractice problem.  Legislation is coming from all angles to block as much access as possible for injured parties.  Binding, forced arbitration, more caps on damages, re-working Wisconsin's Worker's Compensation system which has been in place since the early 1900's and both parties agree does not need to be changed.

So, the question then is, as more and more laws to help injured people get changed to protect doctors, corporations, cities, etc., and not the injured person, when bad things happen to people, how is anyone going to help them?