Corporate Lawsuit Amnesty

The underlying principle behind so-called “tort reform” here can be seen in what’s going on in Wisconsin and other states when it comes to individual and worker rights.

What’s happening is this: States dominated by Republican legislatures and governors are attacking the rights and livelihoods of ordinary middle-class people—and I mean ALL people, not just state workers—while protecting or enhancing the interests of corporations and wealthy people.

Oklahoma has so far avoided Wisconsin-like protests and political conflict, but that doesn’t mean Republican political leaders here aren’t trying to balance the state budget on the backs of workers and educators or that they aren’t pushing for corporate amnesty when it comes to lawsuits. It also doesn’t mean that people won’t someday stand up here in Oklahoma. (Read about how Oklahoma legislators are trying to do away with collective bargaining.)

The Oklahoma Legislature is considering several bills related to lawsuits. One of the bills would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000. This follows a bill passed in 2009 and signed into law by former Gov. Brad Henry that capped such damages at $400,00, with some exceptions.

The more the government caps lawsuit damages, the less access ordinary people will have to a jury trial if they have been injured because of malfeasance. That’s not even debatable. That’s what GOP leaders here and elsewhere want: fewer lawsuits and less money paid in damages, primarily by insurance companies. But the right to a jury trial is fundamental in this country. It helps create a system of checks and balances. Republicans want to dismantle this system so corporations can go unchecked.

Back in 2006, I wrote this about the “tort reform” movement:

There is no such thing as a “tort reform” movement in Oklahoma or elsewhere. What we have is a movement to reward rich people at the expense of ordinary, middle-class Okies, who, if this movement is successful, will no longer get fully compensated for injuries due to negligence.

. . . There is no such thing as “tort reform.” That phrase is a lie passed around by the Republican Party to make sure rich people get even more money. If you buy into it, you are only hurting yourself and family.

This is as valid today as it was five years ago, with an important caveat. Bit by bit, here and elsewhere, the right to a civil jury trial and fair compensation for individuals has been eroded. Do you think the GOP will stop at a $250,000 cap? What will happen next year or the year after that? What about forbidding all civil lawsuits for damages? Could it go that far?

Another heinous bill dealing with limiting people’s rights would force juries to consider the defendant’s other sources of compensation (health insurance, life insurance, etc.) and subtract that from any damage awards. Thus, a company could well go unchecked for malfeasance because an individual was prudent enough to purchase life insurance.

The Oklahoman editorial page, a longtime advocate for lawsuit caps, recently argued this:

A cap on non-economic damages may result in lower settlements for victims and lower fees for trial lawyers, but the greater good is at stake. States that refuse to limit punitive damages are at a disadvantage in competing with states that have caps. This includes the recruitment and retention of physicians and the image projected to the business community.

Follow the logic here. Everyone else is taking away people’s rights so we should, too, because of the “image projected to the business community.” It’s a race to the bottom for “the greater good.” Also, the medical malpractice argument has always been a red herring. There are ways the government could work to reduce insurance costs for physicians without stripping people of their rights and allowing corporations to go unchecked.

As the corporate apologists build up steam in the state legislature this session, the governor has called for a 3 percent cut in education and social services and a 5 percent cut for other agencies to balance next year’s budget. This will mean more layoffs and furloughs for state workers, who are woefully underpaid already. This will also influence the private sector to pay lower wages and benefits for people. Oklahoma is a low-wage state. There’s not a word, not even a small chirp, about raising taxes on the state’s wealthiest citizens. In fact, the state stands poised to cut income taxes again on Jan. 1, which will primarily benefit the state’s richest people.

Oklahoma has its own “Wisconsin” issue, and it’s happening in Indiana, Ohio and other states. It’s about the continuing transfer of money to the country’s wealthiest citizens at the expense of everyone else. “Tort reform,” or, rather corporate amnesty, is a major part on the GOP assault on the middle class.

As much of the world rejects the corporate-dominated reality and market fundamentalism that ruined our national economy, some Oklahoma politicians want to reward big businesses and deny people legal rights.

The Oklahoma Senate Judiciary Committee recently passed House Bill 1603, a Republican-backed measure that would cap noneconomic damages in lawsuits at $300,000 and establish a 10-year limit on product liability lawsuits. Democrats Kenneth Corn (Poteau) and Charlie Laster (Shawnee) voted against the bill, which will now be considered by the full Senate.

Gov. Brad Henry vetoed a similar Republican bill last year.

In essence, people will be denied basic legal rights and big insurance companies will reap the benefits if the bill becomes law. Proponents of the corporate amnesty bill say it will lower insurance costs, but that’s simply not true, according to OK Watchdog, a consumer advocacy group.

OK Watchdog argues:

Should HB 1603 become law, economic growth will be unchanged. Doctors' medical malpractice premiums will not decrease. Health care will not be more affordable or more accessible.

In addition, insurance companies will benefit the most. According to OK Watchdog:

If profits in states without noneconomic damage caps were the same as those in states with caps, insurance companies would have made an additional $9.2 billion in 2005.

Most people can sympathize with rising malpractice insurance rates for physicians, but this bill will do nothing to reduce people’s medical costs. It also allows big corporations to limit their liability for negligence. It transfers more wealth and political power to the richest people in our culture.

We have recently witnessed corporate corruption and greed that went unchecked and led to the largest financial crisis since the Great Depression. This bill removes more checks and balances and leaves us vulnerable to unscrupulous and negligent behavior from our culture’s richest and most powerful people.

Deregulating Standards

A state legislative committee has passed a dangerous, anti-education bill that would deregulate schools and lead to lower standards.

The House Common Education Committee approved Senate Bill 834, and it now goes to the House for a vote. The bill would allow an increasing percentage of Oklahoma schools to operate as charter schools, which are exempt from certain state mandates, such as lowered class sizes.

The Oklahoma Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers oppose the bill.

I wrote about this issue in this week’s Oklahoma Gazette. Be sure to read the counterpoint article as well.

Oklahoma Republicans continue to move corporate lawsuit immunity bills through the legislature.

On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee approved a measure that would require people pay for expensive expert opinions before they could file a civil lawsuit. House Bill 1570, sponsored by Colby Schwartz, a Yukon Republican, requires plaintiffs to submit an affidavit with their lawsuit certifying they have consulted an expert about the lawsuit’s contentions.

According to one lawmaker, state Rep. Ryan Kiesel, a Seminole Democrat, such opinions could cost from $500 to $5,000.

If the bill makes it into law, it would mean someone suing a corporation for negligence couldn’t file a lawsuit unless they paid steep costs upfront. This would obviously deny many people access to the state’s legal system. The bill, which now moves to the full House, would deny people basic legal rights.

Earlier, a bill capping contingency fees for attorneys was approved by the same committee. I also wrote about that bill.

These measures are part of an overall Republican effort here to deny people access to the legal system, thus protecting the interests of big corporations, such as insurance companies. Their claim, which they make under the nomenclature of tort “reform," is that there are too many frivolous lawsuits, which has been consistently refuted.

In a recent press release, Ivan Holmes, the state Democratic Party chair, put it this way:

The Republican Party has made 'tort reform' or what I call 'corporate immunity' their number one issue and the Democratic Party will make it our number one issue.

It is going to come down to who do you want to protect, big insurance companies or the little guy. We are going to prove that it is the insurance companies who are the villains when it comes to so-called 'tort reform’ and the Republicans have sided with them.

Lawyers are hired by the citizens to help them fight for their individual rights while insurance companies have one goal--to make as much profit as possible at the expense of the policy holders.

The press release statement pointed to a study by the Consumer Federation of America that showed insurance companies made $157 billion in profits over three years. It also referred to a New England Journal of Medicine study that showed only 2 percent of people hurt by physician negligence ever file a lawsuit.

Does anyone really think—this includes Republicans—insurance rates will go down if this legislation becomes law? Really?

The press release also posed these questions:

How important is it to you to have the freedom to select your doctor rather than having insurance companies determine your doctor?

How important is it for your doctor to have the freedom to determine your treatment rather than the insurance companies?

How important is it for you to have the freedom to hire a lawyer of your choice to represent you when you feel an injustice has been done?

How important is it for you to have a judge or jury determine the extent of damages you deserve rather than politicians?

Last year, Gov. Brad Henry vetoed corporate immunity legislation. Will he do it again with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate?