South Carolina Personal Injury Law Blog

SC Governor Attempts to Interfere with Workers' Compensation Commission

South Carolina Governor Marshall (Mark) Sanford has attempted to exert his will upon the South Carolina Workers' Compensation Commission.  Basically, he is trying to tell an arm of the judicial branch how to do its job, ignoring the mandates established by the legislative branch when it established the Commission.  The following is an article written by John P. Freeman, who is the John T. Campbell professor of business and professional ethics at the University of South Carolina School of Law, which provides excellent insight and analysis to this situation:

THE GOVERNOR'S INTERFERENCE

We all studied civics in school. We learned about such things as how there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, the executive and the judiciary. Remember the lesson? We were taught that the legislature writes the laws, the executive branch enforces the laws and the judiciary interprets the laws. This separation of powers was designed to protect citizens from excessive power being wielded by any single branch.

Unfortunately, it appears Gov. Mark Sanford cut class the day the foregoing civics lesson was taught.

His lack of education about separation of powers (or his deliberate disregard for the concept) was shown on Sept. 20 when he promulgated an executive order that directed commissioners on the Workers Compensation Commission to change how they decide cases. He commanded them to strictly use “objective standards” in rendering awards.

His aim was to reduce awards for injured workers, thereby saving money for his political base, namely the business community and insurance companies. What Gov. Sanford sought to orchestrate was a wealth transfer: Workers take less, his political base pays less.

Make no mistake about it. Gov. Sanford, the executive branch’s leader, intended to change the law by manipulation of judges he assumed he could control. We know this because when he signed the order at his press conference, comments made by him and his invited guests, business lobbyists, were captured on videotape. On that tape we find Gov. Sanford billing his “objective standards” approach as adding to the workers compensation law something “that was lacking.” Business lobbyists present at the press conference praised Gov. Sanford for “today... implementing objective standards into the workers compensation system for the first time.”

This new requirement pleased the business lobbyists since the Legislature, the government branch actually empowered to write laws, had refused to enact objective standards in the last legislative session.

To enforce his command that workers comp awards be reduced, Gov. Sanford’s order demanded that each commissioner report to the governor quarterly about adherence to the order’s award-cutting command. Implicit in the reporting requirement was the suggestion that failure to follow directions exposed a recalcitrant commissioner to punishment, either removal or the governor’s failure to reappoint.

One of the lobbyists at the order-signing press conference explained that the governor’s right to pressure workers compensation commissioners to change the law was rooted in a “pretty simple concept.” The commissioners, he explained, “are not judges.... They are part of the executive branch. (Gov. Sanford) is the leader of the executive branch.” Another lobbyist later chimed in that “Even making a decision on whether or not to follow the governor’s executive order is improper because the commissioners are not judges.”

What smug business lobbyists and Gov. Sanford have now learned is that a Workers Compensation commissioner is not a puppet on a string. Each actually is a judge from an ethical standpoint, having been placed under the Canons of Judicial Ethics by the Legislature in 2005. Those ethical precepts demand that commissioners must act 24/7 with impartiality and integrity. They are ethically commanded to be faithful to the law and to disregard outsiders who seek to steer their decision-making.

The commissioners’ high ethical standards prevent them from dispensing favors to special interest groups, even when the governor who appointed them orders them to do so.

Political conservatives decry judicial activism, and Gov. Sanford presents himself as a conservative. But his aim in signing this executive order was anything but conservative. It was judicial activism personified. Gov. Sanford sought to manipulate judges in order to change the law to favor the business community, his political base. In their order flatly rejecting Gov. Sanford’s command, the Workers Compensation commissioners offered the governor a make-up assignment for that civics lesson he seems to have missed years ago. They also provided an example of professional integrity he would do well to emulate.

The rest of us can learn lessons from this episode as well. For one thing, we need to remember that those who seek to manipulate judicial decision-making are not working to serve the common good. Their intent is to benefit themselves, the special interest groups. The Workers Compensation commissioners’ steadfastness proves we have public servants with backbones and 20/20 vision.

Mr. Freeman is the John T. Campbell professor of business and professional ethics at the USC School of Law.

Source:  "The Governor's Interference" by Prof. John P. Freeman, published at The State newspaper.

Commission to Strengthen Consumer Safety Regulations

The Consumer Product Safety Commission announced proposed plans last week to strengthen government regulation on products imported into the United States, to broaden safety standards across the board, and to impose stiffer penalties for ignoring safety rules. The proposed regulations follow widespread uproar over imports from China and other consumer safety issues. 

Source:  "Tougher Safety Rules Are Prepared for Imports" by Eric Lipton, published at The New York Times.

Congress Approves Increased Drug Safety Measures

Congressional lawmakers voted last Wednesday to support major reforms of the nation’s drug safety system. House members hope the bill’s passage will prove to be a major step toward improving patient protection and restoring faith in the Food and Drug Administration.  The House bill follows the same basic approach to safety as the previously approved Senate version, but consumer groups said it would give the FDA stronger regulatory powers in some areas. 

Both bills would set up a computerized network to scan medical insurance and pharmacy records for patterns that could signal problems with new drugs. The FDA now relies on anecdotal reports submitted by doctors and drug companies, which are believed to capture only a small fraction of bad drug reactions.  A House-Senate conference committee will work out differences between the two bills, and congressional leaders say they want to send President Bush a final version this summer.

Source:  "House Passes Drug Safety Overhaul" by Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, published in the Los Angeles Times.

More on Bogus National Chamber of Commerce “Study” / Propaganda Attack Against Civil Justice System

As I previously discussed on this blog, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce released an updated “study” last week claiming to rank the best and worst state legal systems in America. But as with past editions, this “study” is a survey of corporate lawyers earning millions of dollars defending their CEOs from being held accountable for wrongdoing and negligence. Similarly, any felon would say that the justice system doesn't work. While the Chamber touts this “study,” the facts tell a different story. 

The Chamber's "Study" Is Bogus:

• The Chamber’s “Study” Is Actually a Survey of Corporate Lawyers Working for Multi-Million Dollar Corporations. Instead of attempting to measure the effectiveness of the civil justice systems in each state, the Chamber instead commissioned a poll of senior lawyers and corporate counsels.  These are the very same lawyers who work every day protecting and defending large corporations when they are sued by consumers or employees who have been injured or abused by the corporation.
• The Chamber’s Own Pollster Admitted that There is No Way to Measure the Fairness of a State’s Legal System. Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, the polling firm that conducted the survey for the Chamber, admitted that there is no way to measure fairness of the legal system in each state. According to the Copley News Service, “Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive said the survey is based on the individual responses of the [corporate] lawyers because there is no hard data that can be used to measure the perceived fairness of a state's legal system.”  Nevertheless, the Chamber has mischaracterized the “study” as “rank[ing] the best to worst legal systems in America.”
• After Ranking West Virginia as Having One of the “Worst” Liability Systems, the Chamber’s CEO and Pollster Were Forced to Admit that Only of a Fraction of Those Surveyed Actually Knew Anything About the State’s Court System. When questioned about the methodology of previous versions of the “study” that ranked West Virginia as 49th in the list of state legal systems, the Chamber’s CEO, Thomas Donohue, and the pollster that conducted the survey, Humphrey Taylor of Harris Interactive, were forced to admit that only a fraction of the corporate lawyers surveyed actually knew anything about West Virginia’s courts. According to the Charleston Gazette, “Taylor and Donahue [sic] acknowledged not all of the 1,437 lawyers surveyed knew anything about West Virginia's courts. Taylor said ‘around 107’ said they had direct knowledge of the state. ‘You could argue that's a small sample, but what they keep saying is ‘49th, 49th, 49th,’ he said.”
• Florida Newspaper Criticized Chamber for Mischaracterizing the “Study” in a Television Ad. According to the Tallahassee Democrat , the Chamber’s Institute for Legal Reform sponsored a television ad in Florida that mischaracterized the results of their “study” of state legal systems. The Chamber’s ad included the line, “[a] recent Harris poll ranked the best to worst legal systems in America.” However, the Democrat reported that this claim was “wrong,” noting that the “ad did not mention the Harris poll was conducted among corporate lawyers who have to defend their clients against civil suits.”

Lawsuits Are Not A Major Concern For Business:

• A Recent Survey Published by the National Association of Manufacturers Found that American Manufacturing Companies Ranked the “Fear of Litigation” at the Bottom of Their Concerns. The National Association of Manufacturers recently released a survey of manufacturers in the United States showing that the “fear of litigation” ranked at the bottom of their list of concerns:

“Please rate the following factors in terms of their negative impact on your company's operations (with 1 representing the greatest negative impact and 10 the least).”

2.9   Cost of non-wage compensation
3.5   Cost of materials used in production
4.0   Inability to raise prices
4.1   Energy prices
5.0   Foreign competition
6.1   Taxes
6.3   Cost of wages
6.4   Shortage of qualified workers
7.4   Regulations/corporate governance rules (Sarbanes-Oxley)
7.8   Fear of litigation

• Survey by Business Week Magazine Found that the Threat of Lawsuits is Not a Major Concern of Small Business Owners. According to a survey published in Business Week magazine, owners of small and medium-sized businesses are generally not concerned about the threat of lawsuits: “One of the survey's more surprising results revealed that tort reform -- particularly limiting class-action lawsuits -- is not a major priority.” The survey found that the biggest threats to their businesses are: (1) Rising inflation, 44 percent; (2) The trade deficit and a weak dollar, 40 percent; (3) Energy shortages, 40 percent; (4) Excessive household and/or corporate debt, 29 percent; (5) The growing federal deficit, 28 percent; (6) Poorly prepared labor force/Shortage of skilled labor, 27 percent.

The Number of State and Federal Tort Trials Is Declining:

• Bush Administration Statistics Show that the Number of Federal Tort Trials is Down Nearly 80 Percent Since 1985. The most recent data from the Bush administration’s Justice Department reported that the number of tort (personal injury) cases resolved in U.S. District Courts fell by 79 percent between 1985 and 2003. In 1985, 3,600 tort trials were decided by a judge or jury in U.S. District Courts. By 2003, that number had dropped to less than 800. 
• The Number of State Tort Trials is Decreasing. According to the most recent statistics from the Bush administration’s Justice Department, the number of tort trials at the state level has decreased. These statistics were compiled as part of the Bureau’s survey of state civil justice systems in the nation’s largest 75 counties. Among these counties, the number of tort trials decreased 31.8% between 1992 and 2001.
• “Overwhelming Majority” of Federal Judges Don’t See “Frivolous Lawsuits” as Major Problem. According to a survey by the Federal Judicial Center – the research and education agency of the federal court system – the overwhelming majority of Federal judges do not view “frivolous lawsuits” as a problem. Seventy percent of the respondents called groundless litigation either a ‘small problem’ or a ‘very small problem,’ and 15% said it was no problem at all. Only 1% called it a ‘very large problem,’ 2% called it a ‘large problem’ and the rest rated it as a ‘moderate problem’ in their courts. In addition, 91% of the judges surveyed opposed provisions in the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act, which won House approval in the last Congress.”

Source:  American Association for Justice.  As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. With 52,000 members worldwide, AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.  Visit http://www.justice.org

Bogus National Chamber of Commerce “Study” Is Propaganda Attack Against Civil Justice System, Which Continues the Chamber's Effort to Eliminate Corporate Accountability for Wrongdoing and Negligence

From the American Association for Justice:

A bogus study released today by the national Chamber of Commerce claiming to rank so-called “anti-business” state legal systems is yet another baseless attack on the nation’s civil justice system in its campaign to eliminate corporate accountability for wrongdoing and negligence.

“This latest propaganda is a made-up survey primarily of corporate lawyers earning millions of dollars defending their CEOs from being held accountable,” said Jon Haber, chief executive officer of the American Association for Justice.  “The Chamber will stop at nothing to destroy the civil justice system in America, which protects the rights of consumers, employees, and shareholders against corporate wrongdoing and negligence.”

As the largest lobby in the country and a front group for corporations seeking to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence, the national Chamber of Commerce has led the effort to eliminate access to justice for Americans.

The American Association for Justice today released “The Ten Worst States to Get Sick or Injured In” providing sobering examples of how the national Chamber’s efforts and those of big corporations seeking to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence puts corporate greed over public good.

“The Ten Worst States to Get Sick or Injured In’’ shows what America is in store for if the national Chamber and powerful corporations get their way. “Efforts by front groups like the national Chamber to pass laws that allow corporate CEOs to evade accountability for wrongdoing and negligence have eliminated many Americans’ access to justice,” Haber said.   

The 10 Worst States To Get Sick Or Injured In:

1.  Don't Get Hurt in Alabama.
It doesn’t matter how seriously an individual is injured, Alabama law limits restitution for every injury or death caused by the government to what’s available under workers comp. If a local governmental entity is held responsible, no matter how great the loss, restitution is limited to $100,000 per person for injury or death, or $300,000 if more than one person is injured or killed in the same incident – no matter how many people were affected. So the more people hurt, the less restitution they receive. Alabama Code §§ 41-9-70, 11-93-2, 11-47-190.

2.  Alaska’s Big Freeze.
In Alaska, restitution for “noneconomic” losses is limited to the greater of $1 million or the injured person’s life expectancy in years multiplied by $25,000. That may not sound bad until one remembers that people can live 50 years or more after they are injured, and these injuries can include something as serious as the permanent loss of urinary and bowel function. Fifty years of tending to the necessary medical needs – let alone the initial treatment – would not come close to being covered by this limited amount. Alaska Statutes § 09.17.010; State v. Johnson, 2 P.3d 56 (Alaska 2000).

3.  Colorado’s Rocky Mountain Low.
Restitution for victims injured by a Colorado state employee is limited to $150,000. If two or more people are injured at one time, restitution is limited to $600,000, no matter how many people must divide the amount. In such cases, regardless of need, no one person can recover more than $150,000. For many victims of serious injury, this would never even cover the basic hospital costs. Colorado Revised Statutes § 24-10-114.

Colorado's legislators have also imposed arbitrary limits on the amount of restitution that can be awarded to medical patients, injured through no fault of their own. No matter the facts of the case, how badly the patient is injured, or how much the medical care and rehabilitation has cost in the past or will cost in the future, compensation is strictly limited to $1 million. Colorado Revised Statutes § 13-64-302(1)(b).

4.  Florida’s Gator Bite.
Florida has consented to allow its citizens to hold the state and its employees accountable – up to a point. Restitution in such cases is limited to $100,000 for one person and a total of $200,000 per incident, no matter how many people are injured or the severity of the harm. Personal losses exceeding $100,000 "may be reported to the Legislature," which may or may not do anything at all. Injured individuals can always hope the state agency involved bought liability insurance. If not, there is no recourse. Florida Statutes § 768.28(5).

In 1988 state legislators took away judges’ and juries’ right to determine cases of babies with brain injuries injured during birth. If expecting parents want to ensure a potential birthing center can be held responsible for its mistakes, they are forced to search out a “non-participating provider” in Florida’s bureaucratic “FBRNIC” Plan. But more often than not, expecting parents have no idea they could be signing away their child’s future in the often-confusing documents piled upon them during a prenatal visit. Florida Statutes §§ 766.301 - .316

5.  Illinois Hospitals Run on the Cheap.
If you get injured as a result of negligence by a state employee or agent – like a physician working at a state-operated hospital – restitution will be limited to $100,000 no matter how serious the injury or how expensive the recovery. Illinois Statutes Chapter 705 § 505/8(d).

6.  Don’t Get Sick in Indiana.
Legislators imposed an arbitrary limit of $1.25 million for injured patients’ restitution, no matter how bad the injury or how much it will cost to provide future care. Although future care for a badly injured person – like a baby with brain damage – can last for decades and cost millions of dollars, Indiana healthcare providers (in reality, their insurance companies) are liable for only the first $250,000. That’s a sweet deal for the insurance companies, which pass the rest of the bill on to the state taxpayers.  Ind. Code Ann. § 34-18-14-3.

A tragic example of this limit’s impact can be found in the experience of Frank Cornelius, a lobbyist who helped convince Indiana lawmakers to adopt it. After helping pass the limits, Cornelius was the victim of four separate acts of negligence in the course of routine surgery and post-operative care. He wrote a poignant article in 1994 stating that, at age 49, he was confined to a wheelchair, was in constant pain, his marriage ended, and he had amassed medical bills of more than $5 million. Due to the limits, his restitution was limited to $500,000.

7.  Oklahoma’s Not OK for Injured Patients.
Oklahoma legislators have imposed a complicated system on injured patients, which resembles a game of poker more than it does access to justice. For example, a guilty party can make an “offer of judgment” before trial – if they offer to settle the case, forego trial, and, if the injured patient will accept their offer, allow a judgment for that amount to be entered against them. If the patient declines the offer of judgment and proceeds to trial, and does not secure a judgment for at least 1½ times the amount offered before trial, any noneconomic compensation is limited to $300,000. Oklahoma Statutes, Title 23, § 1- 1708.1F-1.

8.  Texas: Dead on Arrival.
Legislators decided to let the families of dead patients fend for themselves. Even if a family has lost its breadwinner, if they sue for restitution, they are limited to an amount of $500,000 (to be adjusted to track the consumer price index). The limit applies to each patient killed, no matter how many medical centers, doctors, or other healthcare personnel were responsible for his/her death. Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 74.303.

9.  Virginia May Be for Lovers, but It's Not for Injured Children.
Virginia has a separate system for cases where babies are brain damaged during birth. Such injuries can result from oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury. Babies who suffer them can be permanently disabled, and may need assistance with daily living activities, up to and including round-the-clock care for life. In some cases they need care long after their parents have died. The bureaucratic “VBRNIC” Program is charged with providing lifetime care for injured babies, related expenses and compensation for a child’s lost earnings. Once a baby is injured, the state’s Workers’ Compensation Commission decides whether the baby will be covered, and the claim is never seen by a court unless the Commission’s decision is appealed. Once the Commission decides to cover a baby, the child and his/her family are prevented from ever holding the healthcare provider responsible for the baby’s condition, or for any harm coming to the mother.

Not only does this treatment go against the basic respect for human life, but it also forces an undue burden onto state taxpayers. The program’s expense is borne not by those who caused the injury, or even by their insurance companies. It is borne by every Virginian who purchases any kind of liability insurance – even homeowner and automobile insurance. What’s worse is that the program costs more to operate than the tort system it replaced, juries and all. Virginia Code §§ 38.2-5000 to -5021.

10.  West Virginia, Almost Heaven?
In West Virginia, as long as a healthcare provider has malpractice insurance with at least a $1 million limit, no victim of his/her negligence can recover restitution of more than $500,000 for a "noneconomic" loss. However, "noneconomic" is defined to include a number of conditions that can have major economic consequences. Such losses include permanent, substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, loss of a bodily organ system, or a permanent physical or mental injury that leaves the victim unable to care for himself/herself independently and perform "life sustaining" activities. West Virginia Code § 55-7B-8.

As the world's largest trial bar, AAJ (formerly known as the Association of Trial Lawyers of America) promotes justice and fairness for injured persons, defends the constitutional right to trial by jury, and strengthens the civil justice system through education and disclosure of information critical to public health and safety. With 52,000 members worldwide, AAJ provides lawyers with the information and professional assistance they need to serve clients successfully and protect the democratic values of the civil justice system.  Visit http://www.justice.org

Insurance Industry Reform Legislation Introduced in Congress

The “Insurance Industry Competition Act” has been introduced in both the U.S. House of Representatives and in the Senate.  Did you know that for more than 6 decades, the insurance industry has operated beyond the reach of Federal anti-trust laws?  This critical legislation would repeal the industry’s anti-trust exemption and give the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission the authority to hold insurance companies accountable for their behavior.

When Americans pay for their insurance every month, they should have every right to believe that, if tragedy strikes, their insurance carrier will be there for them.  After all, that is why American families and businesses purchase and rely on insurance for their homes, cars, property, or businesses.  When bad things happen, they should be protected.

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many Gulf Coast residents who lost everything are facing insurance companies, many of which have refused to fulfill their commitments.  These families played by the rules, and insurance companies are shirking their responsibilities owed to them.  In fact, some of the area’s biggest home insurers – Allstate and State Farm – are pulling out of the Gulf States, leaving these families with nothing, even as their corporate profits surpass $5 billion as previously discussed on this blog.

Many homeowners are fighting back through the justice system to force these insurance companies to honor their contracts.  However, the insurance companies have greedily continued to push for legislation limiting the rights of consumers to hold them accountable in the courts –- the only place where Americans can face powerful interests on a level playing field.

Imagine your family loses everything, and your insurance companies will not live up to their end of the bargain.  Consider letting your Representative and Senators know that families are more important the insurance industry profits by telling them to "Protect People, Not Greedy Insurance Companies!"  You can access a directory to quckly and easily find your Representative and/or Senators by clicking HERE.

Source:  The People Over Profits Grassroots Action Center, sponsored by the American Association for Justice.

The Truth About the "Need" for Workers' Comp. "Reform"

The following is a Letter to the Editor by Jeremy A. Dantin, Esq. published earlier this week which provides an excellent analysis of the purported "need" for workers' compensation "reform" in South Carolina:

The cries for reform of the workers' compensation system have become shrill over the past several weeks. In a letter published in this newspaper on April 5, Mr. Jeff Perry wrote: "Businesses are concerned about the negative impact the workers' compensation process has on their ability to operate successfully. ... Our workers' compensation system is taking us out of the running in recruiting and retaining new business."

On Feb. 4, however, the Herald-Journal featured a column by Secretary of Commerce Joe Taylor, who wrote: "Our state reaped the benefits of a record-setting year for capital investment and job creation in 2006. ... We are performing well above the national average when it comes to job growth. South Carolina  is growing jobs at a rate of 2.4 percent annually, outpacing the national average of 1.4 percent. In fact, there are nearly 151,000 more people working today in South Carolina  than there were four years ago." This is not exactly a portrait of crisis for business in this state.

All you hear about is insurance companies raising rates nearly 47 percent over the past three years. Does anyone stop to think that maybe the insurance companies are the problem? It is really quite simple -- the more rates go up, the more money insurance companies make.

Simply legislating down an insurance company's liability does not make injured people healthy or make those who are unable to work suddenly employable. Someone will always be left holding the bag. The insurance industry, which collects premiums in exchange for holding this bag, doesn't actually want to hold it -- it would rather make more money, hand us the bag and blame lawyers and the workers' compensation system for the whole thing.

Source:  "Workers' Comp" by Jeremy A. Dantin, Esq., published in the Spartanburg Herald-Journal.

What Our Soldiers Really Need Is Lawyers

You have probably heard about the scandal involving the conditions at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.  However, what you probably have not heard is even more shocking.  Did you know that for decades, our military servicemembers have been barred from suing for medical malpractice and other forms of negligence by the government under the Feres Doctrine?

This doctrine prohibits servicemembers from seeking the same relief that other citizens can when harmed due to the negligence of others.  Of course, the threat of a lawsuit (and more specifically a judgment) serves as a critical deterrence of negligence by the government, companies, and others.  In other words, knowing that one could be held accountable, required to pay compensation, and possibly pay punitive damages will cause most rational people to take steps to ensure that they act reasonably and thus minimize their legal exposure.

In the military system, there is little deterrence for military negligence beyond self-regulation, bad publicity, or a political scandal, thanks to the Feres Doctrine.  Further, since most accidents are isolated and military personnel tend to stay within the chain of command, these are relatively low risks for military tort-feasors and since such accidents are not litigated, there is no reliable system to determine the rate of accidents in the military.

The military medical system is a prime example of what happens when patients are stripped of their legal protections.  For example, consider the following real-life scenarios:

• A female sailor had to have a fallopian tube removed, but military surgeons left five sponges and a plastic marking device in her abdomen, where the remained undetected for months.  Finally, her resulting complications forced a second surgery to remove her other fallopian tube, which left her infertile.  Her "compensation" for this medical malpractice: $66 per month in disability pay.

• A Lieutenant Commander spent 11 months with red lesions from his legs to his torso that a doctor classified as eczema. It was correctly diagnosed as cancer shortly before he died.

• An Airman was turned away twice by a military hospital that told him his intense stomach pains was nothing more than stomach flu.  He died of a bowel obstruction.

• A Naval Petty Officer went to a military hospital with pneumonia, which is treatable with antibiotics.  However, the doctor left it untreated, and the patient suffered brain damage.

• An Air Force Staff Sergeant had appendicitis but was repeatedly misdiagnosed and sent home with some antibiotics.  After finally collapsing at home, he was rushed into surgery, but he came out brain-dead. It's alleged that a series of malpractice led to his death, including the use of a pediatric rather than an adult device to open an airway when he had trouble breathing.

Both liberals such as Justice John Paul Stevens and conservatives such as Justice Antonin Scalia have denounced the Supreme Court's continued use of the Feres Doctrine, as have dozens of lower court judges.  This doctrine has done more harm to military personnel and families than any court-made doctrine in the history of this country.  If members of Congress truly want the best for our troops, they should start by giving them the same legal protections as the the non-military citizens that they are protecting.

Source:  "What Our Soldiers Really Need: Lawyers" by Prof. Jonathan Turley, published in USA Today.

Pentagon Attempts to Punish Lawyers for Representing Prisoners

 According to an article in the New York Times, a top Pentagon official encouraged corporations to fire their lawyer if that lawyer works for a firm that is representing prisoners at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. This is an outrageous attempt to deny due process by threatening lawyers involved in controversial cases. This government seems to forget that ALL people are entitled to due process, not just the people the government likes. Excerpts from the article:

• The comments by Charles D. Stimson, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, produced an instant torrent of anger from lawyers, legal ethics specialists and bar association officials, who said Friday that his comments were repellent and displayed an ignorance of the duties of lawyers to represent people in legal trouble.
• “This is prejudicial to the administration of justice,” said Stephen Gillers, a law professor at New York University and an authority on legal ethics. “It’s possible that lawyers willing to undertake what has been long viewed as an admirable chore will decline to do so for fear of antagonizing important clients.
• “We have a senior government official suggesting that representing these people somehow compromises American interests, and he even names the firms, giving a target to corporate America.”
• In his radio interview, Mr. Stimson said: “I think the news story that you’re really going to start seeing in the next couple of weeks is this: As a result of a FOIA request through a major news organization, somebody asked, ‘Who are the lawyers around this country representing detainees down there?’ and you know what, it’s shocking.” The F.O.I.A. reference was to a Freedom of Information Act request submitted by Monica Crowley, a conservative syndicated talk show host, asking for the names of all the lawyers and law firms representing Guantánamo detainees in federal court cases.
• Mr. Stimson, who is himself a lawyer, then went on to name more than a dozen of the firms listed on the 14-page report provided to Ms. Crowley, describing them as “the major law firms in this country.” He said, “I think, quite honestly, when corporate C.E.O.’s see that those firms are representing the very terrorists who hit their bottom line back in 2001, those C.E.O.’s are going to make those law firms choose between representing terrorists or representing reputable firms, and I think that is going to have major play in the next few weeks. And we want to watch that play out.”
• Karen J. Mathis, a Denver lawyer who is president of the American Bar Association, said: “Lawyers represent people in criminal cases to fulfill a core American value: the treatment of all people equally before the law. To impugn those who are doing this critical work — and doing it on a volunteer basis — is deeply offensive to members of the legal profession, and we hope to all Americans.”
• The role of major law firms agreeing to take on the cases of Guantánamo prisoners challenging their detentions in federal courts has hardly been a secret and has been the subject of many news articles that have generally cast their efforts in a favorable light. Michael Ratner, who heads the Center for Constitutional Rights, a New York-based human rights group that is coordinating the legal representation for the Guantánamo detainees, said about 500 lawyers from about 120 law firms had volunteered their services to represent Guantánamo prisoners.

Source:  "Pentagon Tries To Punish Lawyers For Representing Prisoners" by Bob Kraft, published at his P.I.S.S.D. blog, discussing "Official Attacks Top Law Firms Over Detainees", published in the New York Times.