Malpractice Insurers Should Be Hearing Heavy Steps

Malpractice Insurers Should Be Hearing Heavy Steps

It warms my heart when an insurance regulator finally catches on to the disingenuous schemes of the industry supposedly being regulated. In the case of medical malpractice, we usually find that the medical societies are unwitting co-conspirators with insurers claiming doomsday scenarios if they do not receive special treatment under the law. Physicians should be screaming louder than patients and consumer groups. Not only are the insurers engaging in “legal” larceny but patients are being harmed in the process by virtue of reduced and more costly medical services.
The co-conspirators usually are seeking caps on damages, limits on the fees the attorneys can charge an injured victim and the creation of countless hurdles and mine fields calculated to diminish even meritorious healthcare lawsuits or at minimum, to arbitrarily limit the recovery that can achieved. In some circumstances, the insurers would continue to gouge the medical community. Occasionally, an alert public interest organization or civil servant catches on. News out of Florida is that the malpractice insurers have been exposed by the State Consumer Advocate and the Insurance Commissioner. Having achieved a cap on damages three years ago, the data on claim frequency and severity now shows that payments to injured parties have dropped 43.6 percent and the rates charged to doctors should be cut 40 to 50%.
Naturally, no one in state government in Florida is concerned about the victims of the malpractice whose recoveries have been limited arbitrarily. The scary thing is that insurance companies routinely engage in this form of skullduggery.

Overtime, wages and Wal-Mart

Maybe there is hope for Wal-Mart after all. The company has reported itself to the U.S. Labor Department for underpaying nearly 87,000 current and former employees a total of $33.5 million. Most likely the company has been getting worried about all of the negative press it has been getting and the grass roots movement to boycot its stores. Many of us will not shop at Wal-Mart until it cleans up its business practices.

Failure to pay overtime unfortunately is a widespread practice among businesses. Federal and state laws require employers to pay overtime compensation to non exempt employees who work over 40 hours per week. Non exempt employees are employees who do not have supervisory duties and generally work at the direction of a superior. Exempt employee are professionals, executives, administrators or outside salespeople.

Employees who feel they are entitled to overtime should investigate their rights and hold their employers accountable. Wal-Mart held itself accountable; maybe other employers who violate the overtime wage laws, will do the same.

THE CONNECTICUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION DISTORTS THE TRUTH

THE CONNECTICUT BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION DISTORTS THE TRUTH

The Connecticut Business and Industry Association (“CBIA”) is a propaganda spewing mouth piece for the major corporate interests in this state. It does offer some services to all businesses but make no mistake about it; its primary purpose is to serve the economic interests of major corporations. Simply look at its Board of Directors and its insular policy of restricting access to its inner workings to its major players. CBIA in turn exercise major control over local Chambers of Commerce which in turn is fundamentally controlled by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The latter organization is a full-time propaganda machine for major industry – the same companies where the CEO makes four hundred times the earning of the average worker.
The CBIA and the Chambers of Commerce have a single minded dedication to preventing any reform that will improve the lives of workers or people who have been injured. In the case of the CBIA, there has been uniform opposition to any reforms that will ensure that injured workers receive fair treatment and adequate compensation for injuries that are life altering in many cases and in other cases, the injuries severely erode the earning capacity of the injured worker. CBIA argues that it will increase the cost to employers as though that should be the litmus test for public policy. We believe that it is more important to examine the global effect that workers’ compensation legislation ca have. CBIA never mentions the economic impact that an injury has on a family but only the minimal cost to employers. Connecticut cannot be a better place to live if the workers’ compensation law results in increases in home foreclosures, more bankruptcies, college educations that become unaffordable, poorer diets, worse health care, greater stress and the physiological consequences of less income.
Each week CBIA send out the “CBIA Government Affairs Report” and each week it is packed with lies and distortion. It uses propaganda urging its members to get involved in the legislative process and makes distorted claims that it does not support with evidence, facts, empirical studies or peer reviewed research. Today, as a member of CBIA (it does offer a competitive health insurance plan) I accepted an invitation to contact its employee involved with workers’ compensation. I posed questions today as I have posed questions in the past. I have never received an informed response from the CBIA. Here is today’s email:

I received the following email alert today as a member of the CBIA:

Labor Committee looking to increase workers’ comp costs
(Jan. 26, 2007) Numerous proposals to erode Connecticut’s workers’ comp reforms, increase system costs or add administrative burdens will be the subject of a public hearing by the Labor Committee on Tuesday, Jan. 30, at 2 p.m. in the state Legislative Office Building.
Some of the bills being considered include:• Eliminating the two-year statute of limitations on the filing of claims for scarring benefits• Increasing penalties on employers for delays in workers’ comp payments• Eliminating the permanency cap on discretionary benefits• Requiring employers to notify employees of potential workers’ comp benefits immediately upon injury• Requiring employers to help employees file claims for workers comp
If enacted, several of these measures — such as the expanded scarring and discretionary benefits bills — will drastically increase business costs.
As a member of CBIA, would you kindly provide to me the following information:
1. The actuarial data that demonstrates the cost to each class of employer should these measures be adopted including measures that would expand scarring and discretionary awards under 31-308(a)
2. Any analysis that justifies or excuses the routine delay in the payment of workers' compensation benefits.
3. The harm that would be occasioned to employers who were required to advise their employees of their potential entitlement to workers' compensation benefits following injury...
4. The harm that would be occasioned to employers which were required to help their injured employees complete the paperwork necessary to file a workers' compensation claim.
Thank you for your anticipated response.

Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford St.
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel. (203) 325-8600
Fax (203) 323-5970
Board Certified in Civil Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy
http://www.casperdetoledo.com

PROPOGANDA FROM THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

PROPOGANDA FROM WILLIAM G. PLESTED III, M.D. PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

The following letter was written by William G. Plested III, M.D. the current President of the American Medical Association. It is part of an ongoing campaign by the medical industry to profiteer at the expense of their [patients and the constitutional rights of all Americans. Contrary to Dr. Plested’s assertion, the MICRA type bill the former majority in Congress attempted to foist on the American public, was never a success. It was impacted by a California Constitutional Amendment that forced medical malpractice insurance companies to roll back premiums. That fact coupled with the MICRA caps has wreaked untold hardship on the victims of malpractice in California who receive inadequate compensation for their injuries. This population includes many senior citizens, women and children as well as people making a modest living.

Here for your own indigestion is what Dr. Plested had to say:

“The new year is upon us and brings excitement and hope for new beginnings in all of our endeavors. It is time to review our gains and losses in 2006, and to set our goals for 2007. So let's begin with an honest and critical look at the year that has just been completed.
Last year, our No. 1 legislative priority was again medical liability reform. For the 10th time in the past 10 years, our MICRA-type bill was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives, only to be stalled in the Senate. As in past years, the bill was prevented from a floor vote by the filibuster or cloture rule.

Even though it appears that we would prevail in a floor vote, such a vote has been prevented by a handful of senators. The cloture rule necessitates a supermajority vote of 60 to bring a bill to the floor for a final vote that can enact the bill with a simple majority vote of 51.
Another major setback was a ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals in Lake Charles, La. A five-judge panel struck down the Louisiana cap on damages in a 3-2 decision. Fortunately, the written decision included some gross inaccuracies, such as a statement that there is absolutely no proof that caps are related to the lowering of medical liability premiums.
Statements such as this give us hope that this unfortunate ruling can be overturned on appeal. However, the crystal-clear lesson for us is that even our most dearly won gains are at risk as long as there are trial lawyers and judges, as long as the tort system is the method by which medical liability claims are adjudicated.

On a much more positive note, we saw continued reductions in the medical liability insurance premiums charged to physicians in Texas. This follows their tort reform efforts and the passage of Proposition 12, which amended the Texas constitution to allow for caps. It is reported that the improvement in the medical liability climate in Texas has been so remarkable that their state medical board has been swamped with applications from physicians who want to practice in the Lone Star State. This Texas experience documents the fallacy of the ruling in Louisiana.”

So Dr. Plested continues to harp on the medical industry’s failure to impose punitive measures on the public. Instructively, the effort that defeated the measure was bi-partisan. Further, it is instructive to note that the electoral revolution last November threw the Republican special interest machine out of power so that it is extremely unlikely that the current Congress will barter with our constitutional rights. Sorry Dr. Plested, Texas is not a shining example of how health care in this country should work. People are getting hurt with limited right of redress. It only makes Texas a great state in which a physician can practice malpractice rather than to practice medicine.

Happily, here in Connecticut, malpractice insurance companies have been exposed for their greed, and skyrocketing profits. Independent studies have demonstrated that absence of need for depriving people of their rights and instead, there is movement toward forcing the medical community to police itself and to hold bad doctors and profiteering insurance companies accountable.

All of my conclusions are supported by a recently released Report by Citizens Action, the public interest watchdog. The report may be found at http://www.citizen.org/documents/NPDB%20Report_Final.pdf.

Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford St.
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel. (203) 325-8600
Fax (203) 323-5970
Board Certified in Civil Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy
http://www.casperdetoledo.com

ATTENTION ALL PREGNANT WOMEN

ATTENTION ALL PREGNANT WOMEN

The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists (“ACOG”) issued a practice bulletin (New Recommendations for Down Syndrome Call for Screening of All Pregnant Women ) on January 2, 2007 recommending that all pregnant women should be offered screening for Down syndrome. Under previous protocols, only women 35 years of age or older were offered genetic counseling and diagnostic testing for Down Syndrome via amniocentesis or chorionic villus sampling (‘CVS”).

The new standard of practice is to offer all pregnant women less invasive screening options to assess their risk for giving birth to a child with Down syndrome, a relatively common disorder characterized by an extra chromosome that can result in congenital heart defects and mental retardation. The screening should occur before the 20th week of pregnancy

The failure to offer this form of screening which would have prevented the birth of a child with significant limitations and the need for a life time of care, may give rise to a potential claim for medical malpractice.

Connecticut law is quite strict and burdensome, requiring that any such claim be initiated within two years of the occurrence or discovery of the occurrence. (MEDICAL MALPRACTICE-STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; Statutes of Limitations - Law Firm Casper & de Toledo L.L.C. Attorneys Stamford, Connecticut).

Unlike many other jurisdictions, Connecticut does not protect the rights of children who may be the victim of medical malpractice by tolling or placing on hold the statute of limitations during all or some part of the child’s minority. Many potential claims are rejected because a parent is led to believe that he/she can wait some significant period of time following the child’s birth before seeking legal advice. This is not the case in a Connecticut medical malpractice case.

Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford St.
Stamford, CT 06905
Tel. (203) 325-8600
Fax (203) 323-5970
Board Certified in Civil Trial Advocacy by the National Board of Trial Advocacy
http://www.casperdetoledo.com
email: scasper@cadetlaw.com

THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY - PERPETUATING THE CONSUMERS' CRISIS

On December 27, 2006, the Chief Economist for the Insurance Institute reported that the property and casualty side of the insurance industry continued its record setting escalation of profits during the first nine months of 2006. The property and casualty part of the insurance industry includes fire, theft, earthquake, flood, automobile, homeowners’, commercial, marine, governmental liability. Net profits after taxes for the nine month period were $44.9 Billion. The entire report can be found at: III - 2006 - First Nine Months Results.

So when your insurance bills continue to increase making it more difficult for you to make ends meet, ask yourselves why it is that a supposedly regulated industry like the insurance industry is permitted to take advantage of the system.
Ask yourselves why insurance company executives make so much money. And ask yourselves why it is so difficult to get an insurance company to treat customers and people with bonafide claims decently.

Stewart M. Casper
Casper & de Toledo LLC
1458 Bedford St.
Stamford, CT 06905

203-325-8600
scasper@cadetlaw.com