THE MYTH OF CAPS ON DAMAGES

The November 22, 2004 Chicago Sun Times contained an excellent editorial on the subject of capping damages. The editorial, a rebuttal to an earlier column in the Sun Times, was drafted by Daniel M. Kotin and Daniel S. Kirschner, two trial attorneys with Corboy & Demetrio. Their article raise several important points:

1) First, contrary to popular legend, the number of doctors in Illinois is not decreasing, but increasing. According to Illinois statistics, there are 9,000 more doctors in Illinois today than there were in 1994;
2) Physician flight from less populated areas is nothing new - it has been going on for some time and will likely continue even if caps are put in place. Doctors who practice in high risk areas are drawn to urban areas where they make more money;
3) Over the last several years jury awards have increased at approximately 6%(lower than the annual rate for medical inflation), while malpractice premiums have increased 66%. So where does all that money go if it isn't paying verdicts? Into the pockets of the folks who run the insurance companies. Consider that from 1995 to 2002 ISMIE, Illinois' largest medical malpractice insurer recorded a total profit of $25.1 million dollars. In 2003 ISMIE had a profit of $19.8 million, after raising doctor premiums 35%. And ISMIE was doing that to policy holders even though they paid out less money for malpractice awards in 2002 than they did in 1992. Wonder if the folks at ISMIE show those numbers to their policyholders?
4) The number of medical malpractice cases in Cook County is down approximately 24% from 2003.

In closing, the article points out that caps isn't going to reduce malpractice premiums and isn't going to bring back doctors who have left the state. The insurance industry is the house that needs cleaning.

REPUBLICANS MISPLACE THEIR SPINES

The Chicago Tribune reported today that House Republicans voted to change a rule they had enacted in 1993 in order to protect embattled Representative Tom DeLay, that tiny little former exterminator from Texas. The new rule was approved by a voice vote in a closed door meeting of House Republicans. In effect, it states that a party committee would review any felony indictment of a party leader to determine if was "politically motivated" before requiring the representative to step down. The old rule, enacted 11 years ago by the Republicans would require DeLay to give up his seat upon indictment. At least some of the Republicans were against the new rule, but the spineless majority prevailed.

DeLay has not yet been indicted, but several close associates have, and insiders in Congress think there is an indictment with DeLay's name on it. Ronnie Earle, a Democrat, is District Attorney in Davis County Texas and is investigating alleged campaign violations that allowed Republicans to win several Texas legislative seats in 2002. DeLay has been already been admonished twice by the house, once for asking FAA officials to track an airplane with Texas Democrats aboard during a 2003 redistricting battle. DeLay, in a stroke of master hypocrisy, said that Democrats were engaged in the politics of "personal destruction". The former exterminator was one of former President William Clinton's most savage critics and didn't hesitate to engage in the politics of personal destruction against Clinton. What goes on comes around little man.

CELEBRITY JUSTICE...

Interesting lawsuit involving two celebrities out in LaLa land. Jim Belushi has filed a 4 million dollar lawsuit against Julie "Catwoman" Newmar accusing her of conducting a campaign of harassment to drive him from his Brentwood, California home. The lawsuit claims that Newmar has destroyed Belushi's property, made defamatory statements to neighbors and even spied on Belushi family get togethers. Belushi claims that Newmar's actions have caused him great emotional distress. No word from Newmar just yet. No real comment on this lawsuit, save to say that as a young boy who watched the original Batman growing up, Julie Newmar looked great in the Cat outfit.

And what the hell is going on with Liza Minnelli? Minnelli, who has already been accused of beating her estranged husband, David Gest, is now facing allegations that she also beat a former bodyguard. M'Hammed Soumayah, the singer's former guard, sued her last month, and alleged that she frequently beat him. Minelli, in response, has filed a countersuit, for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. And I was so sure she and Gest would live happily ever after.

RANDOM THOUGHTS

Once again guilty of not blogging for a number of weeks. No really good excuse, apart from poor planning...

Took the election results hard...particularly because I was foolish enough to buy into the "Exit Poll" data some of the blogs were showing. Zogby, at about 5:00 pm Chicago time had it a Kerry landslide, giving him 311 electoral votes. Not quite. And that electoral map is going to be tough to crack - lots of red and only a couple of islands of blue on the coasts and in the upper Midwest. Democrat in 2004? Best bet has to be Kerry. He hasn't ruled it out and has demonstrated an ability to raise funds. Will be interesting to see if Dean backs him.

And finally have to admit I did get a laugh watching Ann Coulter attempting to scamper away from those vicious liberals that threw pies at her. She looked like a stork having some sort of seizure. But enough about politics...

CASES IN THE NEWS...

First and foremost, how about our man O'Reilly? I seem to remember him vowing to fight that sexual harassment suit even if it was his ruin. All that stuff about how they had picked the wrong guy to mess with...blah, blah, blah. Lo and behold, he pays a big chunk, and then cuts and runs. What about fighting the good fight O'Reilly? I guess he is quite capable of spin when he needs it.

And Scot Peterson convicted after a week plus of jury deliberation and two jurors getting tossed. Have to say, was pretty disappointed in Geragos' defense. He threw a number of scenarios out for public consumption both prior to trial and during the plaintiff's case in chief and then didn't come close to proving any of them. The defense "case" wasn't much of a case at all. And to this day still cannot figure out precisely what Gloria Allred does. And I wouldn't dare get between her and a television camera for fear of getting run over. Although she is currently only number 2 on the list of annoying women legal commentators. Number one with a bullet is Nancy Grace from Larry King's show. Never seen a defendant that isn't guilty and is incapable of objectivity.

Also saw an interesting case reported today in the Chicago Sun Times. A landlord in Lincoln, Nebraska is being sued by the Justice Department for demanding sex once a week from a female tenant in lieu of rent payments. The woman got him on tape and I quote: "Let's put it on the table...once a week sounds good". Under the circumstances, you have to wonder, what exactly did he want to put on the table? And his defense? His lawyer, Matthew McBride was quoted as saying: "There were no violent acts committed by Mr. Koch - that's important here." If you say so. Wouldn't bet the ranch on a not guilty there Matt.