THE PUBLIC MIND: STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL RESPONDS TO NEWSPAPER ARTICLES

Beginning on April 12, the Post-Dispatch published a series of articles regarding administration of the state's Second Injury Fund, and, more specifically, my office's involvement in the handling of the fund.

The obvious general tenor of the articles suggested that I have benefited politically from the manner in which special assistant attorneys general, appointed by my office, defend the fund. That allegation is completely without merit and is in reckless disregard of the truth.

The use of anonymous sources further demonstrates a willingness on the part of the Post-Dispatch to abandon journalistic standards to achieve its political ends.

The Post-Dispatch writes that a computer analysis of some 11,000-plus Second Injury Fund cases reveals that special assistant attorneys general, when acting in the capacity of claimants' attorneys, receive larger settlement awards in comparison to other claimants' attorneys.

The paper also alleged that its analysis indicated that higher awards were received by claimants' attorneys who had contributed to my campaign for governor.

First, this so-called analysis is terribly flawed. Comparing the results achieved by lawyers who are experts in workers' compensation law to the remaining field of claimants' lawyers is like comparing apples to oranges.

Our special assistants and a handful of other highly skilled defense and claimant attorneys participate in the area of workers' compensation law on a daily basis. That specialized group of attorneys has acquired a level of skill and experience far beyond that of other attorneys who handle but a few workers' compensation cases a year.

Obviously, experienced attorneys are going to attract cases involving more serious injuries that naturally equate into a higher per-case settlement awards. To suggest that our special assistants and lawyers who contribute to my campaign receive higher settlements for reasons other than professional competency is not only statistically inaccurate but irresponsible as well.

Also lacking in the series of articles was a clear explanation of the role performed by administrative law judges appointed by the Division of Workers' Compensation, an agency having no connection with my office. Each award, whether obtained by settlement or trial, must be reviewed and approved by a judge.

The series suggested that such approval by these judges was simply ministerial and not an integral part of the process. That notion is absurd. Those judges are qualified individuals charged with responsibility of assuring that all settlements by medical records and other facts compiled by the respective litigants. To suggest that these judges simply rubber-stamp stipulations for settlements is completely inaccurate and an unwarranted attack upon those judges' integrity.

In addition, a paragraph in one of the stories indicated that the Post-Dispatch's computer study revealed that the same attorney who filed a claim against the fund also defended the fund against the same claim. That is an outrageous allegation. The Post-Dispatch has no information to support this claim.

In fact, as claims come in, they are assigned out to our special assistants on a random basis. In the rare instance when a special assistant receives a case which he or she may have filed on behalf of a claimant, it is routinely transferred to another special assistant for handing. For the Post-Dispatch even to suggest that our special assistants may have settled cases with themselves is untrue and irresponsible.

There is no doubt that our policy of hiring outside counsel to defend the fund has been cost beneficial to the state. We provided information to the Post-Dispatch that showed that special assistants have saved the state hundreds of millions of dollars by aggressively defending the fund; however, the paper chose not to include that information in any of its articles.

During my tenure as attorney general, I have made repeated budget requests of the Legislature for funds to hire additional staff. My requests have been consistently denied.

As a result, the only viable alternative has been to hire competent independent counsel from around the state to properly and aggressively defend the fund against hundreds of millions of dollars in potential liability.

The Post-Dispatch and I disagree on many issues. We simply do not share the same philosophy of government. In this series, the Post-Dispatch ignored information we provided but that did not serve its desired political theme. Its subscribers deserve news articles that are fair and objective. St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch wrote in a letter published April 17:

"Because I have taken the Post to task, I fully expect to incur the wrath of the editorial board."

The wrath of the Post-Dispatch will not prevent me from setting forth the facts and truth. I will never object to the paper's rights to challenge my positions on its editorial pages. But I do not believe fairness and objectivity should be the criteria for front-page news stories. In this series of articles, fairness and objectivity were nowhere to be found.

William L. Webster

Attorney General,

State of Missouri