Blog Topic

Comments on NYTimes.com Editorial - Insurance Company Schemes
June 29, 2009

Anyone with health insurance has long suspected that the insurance industry has made an art form out of accepting monthly premiums, while denying payment of legitimate claims. The US Congress over the past few weeks has finally brought to light proof of that practice. LINK

That health insurers are taking advantage of their customers is terrible. That the customers are often in dire places at the time makes it despicable - family members dying of cancer, suffering the consequesces of a tragic accident, following the loss of a loved one. When the consumer most needs their coverage seems to be when the insurance company is most likely to deny or delay coverage.

Now, the important question: what can be done about it? As the NY Times says - strong oversite is necessary. For too many years, the view was to remove the regulation and allow the market to govern itself. We now have vivid proof that, when you take the referee out of the ring, the big guys don't fight fair. Congress needs to put the regulator back into the ring, so that the little guy isn't taken advantage of.

Permalink

Comments on - Quick Guide to the FDA - TIME
June 24, 2009

Link to Time Article - Quick Guide to the FDA 

The article from Time that's attached shows what a huge job the FDA has - both in terms of the products and foods they are expected to regulate, and in terms of the significant health impact it can have on people all around the USA. From medical devices to pharmaceutical drugs to foods, the FDA is expected to keep track of all dangers and labels and products and so on.

The reality is, however, that each of the manufacturers of these products bear an even greater role in safety. Our system is designed to be self-policing, meaning that the makers of the products and devices and pharmaceutical drugs are expected to self-report problems. That system is one that requires mutual trust and honesty from the companies. Unfortunately, that trust is often violated, as the article points out. Drug makers are not currently required to report ALL studies of their drugs - meaning, they can perform a study and, if they don't like the results, simply put the article on the shelf. Doctors and patients would never know about the study.

Likewise, medical device makers will often promote their devices for things never approved by the FDA. And, the FDA simply doesn't have enough people and resources to keep track of every device and all the statements and suggestions made.

The FDA's new director is promising to take a more active roll, and require much more transparency from the companies. Such transparency will help to eliminate dangerous devices and poorly researched drugs from harming people.

Permalink

Obama Open to Reining in Medical Suits
June 15, 2009

Apparently, President Obama is considering restrictions to lawsuits against doctors. LINK. Although the general idea sounds easy (getting rid of junk lawsuits, and protecting doctors against run-away juries), the reality is much different.

First, limits on damages don't affect the junk suits - they only affect the really big cases, which of course aren't junk cases. In other words, the suit of "they served me bad food in the hospital" is never worth enough to be affected by a cap on damages. The victims affected by the cap are children crippled from a birth injury - for whom a lifetime of medical care is very expensive. Or families who have lost a loved one due to medical negligence, who have lost a lifetime of care and nurturing and support. Or the elderly, who are sometimes terribly mis-treated in nursing homes. Putting limits on the potential recoveries for those families just adds financial injury to the already existing emotional and medical injury.

Getting rid of junk lawsuits is a good idea. Putting caps on serious cases does nothing to get rid of junk lawsuits - it merely punishes the victims of terrible injuries. Such an idea doesn't help doctors either - should they ever find themselves the victim of medical negligence.

Miller, Curtis and Weisbrod, LLP is a national lawfirm with principal offices in Dallas, Texas. We have dedicated our firm to representing people and families who have suffered injuries and losses due to the negligence of others. We help victims of trucking accidents, construction site accidents, medical negligence, dangerous pharmaceutical drugs, and other reckless conduct. Please visit our website at http://www.mcwlawfirm.com/ for more information concerning our firm and how we might be able to help.

Permalink

Justices Tell Judges Not to Rule on Major Backers
June 09, 2009

The U.S.Supreme Court has recognized that major financial contributions from big corporations directly to state Supreme Court Justices creates the appearance of undue influence. THe attached article from the New York TImes explains the problem well - when a large corporation makes a large donation to a justice, and later that same justice issues a ruling in favor of that corporation (potentially saving the corporation millions of dollars), that just looks bad. LINK

 In Texas, we have proof of how bad it is. Several law schools professors in Texas gathered together and did a study to determine if the big corporations won more decisions before the Texas Supreme Court. THe short answer is, Yes. Nearly 85% of the time that an individual faces off with a big corporation, the big corporation wins.

There can be little doubt that the financial contributions of the big companies pays direct financial dividends

Permalink

Auto Industry today.
June 01, 2009

Today General Motors Corp filed for bankruptcy. The 100-year-old company was, for decades, one of the most powerful companies in the world. Now, employees and their families around the country are fearing for theworst. Following on the heals of Chrysler's bankruptcy, the American auto industry has obviously done a poor job of keeping up with it's competition.

And the same is true in the safety department of the big auto makers. Over the years, consumers have been terribly hurt or killed in cars like: the Ford Pinto which caught on fire from rear-end impacts; the Jeep CJ5 which rolled in sharp turns; the Ford Explorer/Firestone Tire combination, where a tire would de-tread and cause the SUV to rollover; and the Crown Victoria police cruisers, that also catch fire from rear-end impacts.

Apparently, cutting corners on safety did not save money for the companies. But, for the families affected by these tragedies, the damage continues even to this day.

Chrysler, in a behind-the-scenes move, is trying to escape responsibility as part of their bankruptcy filing. Chrysler has asked the Court to dismiss all lawsuits for all vehicles designed and/or sold prior to the bankruptcy filing. That means tens of thousands of vehicles on the road, with hidden dangers and defects, that might escape any responsibility. Hopefully, the Court will reject this effort. And hopefully, GM will not attempt the same trick.

Permalink