Bill was political hostage

By John L. Cook

I have seen a press release from state Rep. Jason Crowell which asserts that the governor has vetoed a bill aimed at curbing "frivolous lawsuits." Nothing could be less accurate.

Senate Bill 280 sought to limit the right of injured people to recover from the people whose carelessness injures them. One of the things this ill-advised bill would do is cap at $350,000 the non-economic damages suffered by injured people. This seems like a lot of money. But consider a case where a person has lost both legs as a result of negligence. The cost of amputation is minimal, maybe a few thousand dollars. There is no economic loss, because the person can still work from a wheelchair. He or she just can't walk. Or run. Or get out of a wheelchair. If that person was young and active, is $350,000 a reasonable upper limit of recovery?

What about a person who has been blinded as a result of negligence. The same lack of economic damages exists. Is the loss of sight worth no more than $350,000? Or a person who is rendered a paraplegic but who, obviously, can still work?

The tragic part is that the opponents of the rights of injured people say they are worried about "frivolous lawsuits." The people who are wronged by a cap of $350,000 are not people with frivolous cases, but people with the most serious cases. "Frivolous" is the opposition of "serious." Insurance companies and their defense lawyers aren't worried about frivolous cases. They wish all cases would be frivolous. They are worried about the serious cases. I hope a serious injury never afflicts anyone reading this or any of their loved ones. Only when such a tragic, life-changing injury hits home do people realize why we have fought for individual rights and the right to be fairly compensated when someone's carelessness ruins a life.

The other tragedy in this bad bill was that it did not do what fair-minded people had agreed to do. The interested parties were within an eyelash of agreeing on a bill that would have given doctors relief from rising malpractice-insurance premiums. Everyone knows the reason premiums have gone up is because insurance companies have lost investment money in the stock market. What is needed is better regulation of insurance companies. A good bill would have provided for that and would also have partly limited patients' rights to help doctors with their premiums. An agreement was within reach. Then the Republican leadership, notably including Crowell, insisted on piggybacking product liability and nursing-home special interests on the bill.

Let's ask Crowell, state Sen. Peter Kinder and House Speaker Catherine Hanaway why they held the bill hostage to the interests of nursing homes and the makers of defective products. It killed the bill. They knew it would. They deliberately have decided to use the doctors to try to get unnecessary breaks for industries that are notorious fund raisers for Republicans. It seems popular for politicians to do that these days, but let's not kid each other about why it's being done.

SB 280 was a bad bill. It was made bad for political reasons. Thank goodness the governor stood up to the special interests and vetoed it. And shame on Jason Crowell for a misleading press release about "frivolous lawsuits."

John L. Cook of Cape Girardeau is a lawyer.