The House gave final approval this week to legislation meant to better prepare young people for success after high school. The legislation, Senate Bills 620 & 582, would require the state Board of Education to establish minimum graduation requirements for a Career and Technical Education (CTE) certificate that a student can earn in addition to their high school diploma.
Under the legislation, the State Board of Education and the Career and Technical Education Advisory Council will establish minimum requirements for a CTE certificate. Each local school district will determine the curriculum, programs of study, and course offerings based on the needs and interests of students in the district, and the state education department will develop a process for recognition of a school district’s CTE certificate program. Students entering high school in the 2017-2018 academic year and thereafter will be eligible for a CTE certificate.
I am confident this educational avenue for high school students will not only prepare them for a good wage-earning career after high school, but is a step toward continued education at a technical or community college which will give them the skills for an even higher paying position while increasing their employment opportunities. The need for skilled tech employees is so high these students should have little to no problems finding a well-paying job that could lead to a life-time career.
Currently, Missouri has an established CTE system, as outlined by the Missouri Department of Education. Missouri’s CTE education system is made up of over 500 local education agencies, including 437 high school districts. In the 2014–15 school year, over 250,000 high school students and adults participated in career education training programs.
Collateral Source Reform Legislation, Senate Bill 847 would reform Missouri’s legal system to clarify that an injured person involved in a lawsuit can recover only the actual cost incurred for medical treatment. Specifically, the legislation would modify Missouri’s collateral source rule that currently prevents evidence from being admitted to show when a plaintiff’s losses have been compensated from other sources such as insurance or workers’ compensation.
Those who believe the collateral source rule needs to be reformed say the current system allows plaintiffs to make money by filing lawsuits for injuries that have already been covered by other sources. They say it allows individuals to recover damages or costs that were never incurred, while the intent of the law should be to make the plaintiff whole.
Opponents claim the change would instead punish plaintiffs because they have health insurance. They say plaintiffs with additional expenses would be hurt by the legislation because they wouldn’t be fully compensated. However, supporters say plaintiffs can still recover lost wages, future medical expenses, and compensatory and punitive damages.
The change approved by the House and Senate simply clarifies that an injured person can recover the actual cost incurred for medical treatment rather than the inflated value of the treatment billed by a health care provider. Specifically, it allows evidence to be admitted in court showing the actual cost, rather than the value, of the medical care or treatment to the plaintiff.
A Senate bill that received significant contentious debate and yet passed is the Expert Witness Legislation. It is meant to improve the reliability of expert evidence that is presented to juries in Missouri state courts. The bill would implement an established standard for determining when expert-witness testimony is admissible as evidence at trial.
The proposed standard, commonly referred to as the Daubert standard after a 1993 U.S. Supreme Court case, is used in federal courts and in more than two-thirds of the states. Under this standard, the trial judge acts as a gatekeeper to ensure that “expert” testimony is based on “sufficient facts or data” and is the product of “reliable principles and methods.” Currently in Missouri, judges admit expert testimony if it is based on facts that are “reasonably relied upon by experts in the field.”
Supporters of the change say the bill would ensure that testimony from someone designated by lawyers as an ‘expert’ can be relied upon by citizen jurors. They say the state should ensure that evidence presented in court is trustworthy and not just a product of how much a party can afford to pay a so-called expert to say whatever supports the party’s case.
Opponents of the bill say the interpretation of the Daubert standard varies greatly from circuit to circuit and judge to judge. They also say the standard would make it more costly for injured parties to obtain expert witnesses.
The expert standard would apply in both criminal and civil cases, except in family law and juvenile cases.
Two bills reported to the Senate for approval are gun-rights measures (HB 1468 and HB 2057). One piece of legislation would limit the fees to carry a concealed firearm while the other would effectively remove all fees by doing away with the need for a concealed carry permit, and instead allow what is known as constitutional carry.
HB 2057 would ensure that concealed carry permit applicants cannot be charged a fee in excess of $100. The bill specifically prohibits additional fees that may be charged, including any fee for fingerprinting or criminal background check.
HB 1468 would allow Missourians to carry a concealed weapon without the need for a permit. Commonly referred to as constitutional carry, the bill would allow any person to carry a concealed firearm anywhere that isn’t expressly prohibited by law. The sponsor of the bill said it is meant to build on the constitutional change made by Missouri citizens in 2014 that allows Missourians the right to permit-less carry. The legislation is meant to bring Missouri statute in line with the constitution.
I voted for these measures because many cannot afford conceal and carry licensing classes. The ability to conceal and carry of course does not mean personal responsibility falls by the wayside. Everyone who carries should follow procedures for proper handling, storing and maintaining of the weapon.
Current statute allows individuals to use deadly force to defend themselves and their property against intruders. Both bills approved by the House would extend the protection against lawsuits to house guests who use deadly force.
I received a visit from the SEMO University dietitian students who spent the day explaining to General Assembly members the importance of dietary education and the role it plays in public health outcomes. Thank you for taking the time to visit the Capitol.
|
|
|
|
|
Respond to this blog
Posting a comment requires a subscription.