The political forces of the trial lawyers do not want tort reform. They don’t want medical malpractice tort relief. They don’t want general business tort reform. They don’t want caps and they don’t want regulations on venue. They want the freedom to sue; they don’t want a special session on tort reform.
So why are they so upset at the failure of the special session? Why do they angrily accuse the Senate of blocking the House’s reform plan? Why are they mad when they won? They know that while they won the policy battle, they could lose the political war.
To set the stage, I’ll quickly recap the special session. Governor Ronnie Musgrove announced he would call a special session to address his prison bill. Once that was passed and on his desk, and only then, he said he would expand the session to cover medical malpractice tort relief. Once he had that bill ready to sign, and again only then, he would expand the session to cover general tort reform.
The prison bill flopped; the legislators came to town knowing it was going down in defeat. Musgrove caught a lot of flack on his political extortion of a three-tier special session expansion call. But he relented and expanded the session to cover medical malpractice.
The House put together a plan that would insignificantly address medical malpractice by capping non-economic damages at $1 million. They had originally planned to place caps at $500,000 but doubled it for negotiation room with the Senate. Meanwhile, they conveniently included an “escape clause” that would have allowed a judge to ignore those caps anyway. Thus, when the trial lawyer factions win judicial elections, this legislation would mean nothing. Without some type of stricter venue restriction, trial lawyers could always find a way to shift the venue of their trials to a friendly judge. This judge, while perhaps being fair and unbiased, would at the least be more willing to use the “escape clause” to blow the legislative caps.
The Senate’s plan was much more conservative. Their caps were placed at $250,000. They addressed medical relief and general tort reform. They restricted venue. They proposed substantial changes in the civil justice system that one would expect from a special session, while the House wanted to throw a few dry bones to the medical community that would have been disappointing in a regular session.
The respective bills passed both chambers and went to conference. The conferees discussed the bills, compromises were offered on each side but none satisfactory enough to reach a result and then it was over.
Speaker of the House Tim Ford and his leadership, along with the Governor and his office, maintained that if the Senate would only remove the general tort reform legislation from the bill, then the House would be willing to address the aspects of the medical malpractice relief, and then afterwards consider a bill for general tort reform.
When the Senate refused to buckle, Ford and Musgrove began blaming them for obstruction. But they cannot criticize the Senate for failing to be reasonable when they are engaged in playing precisely the same politics. If the Speaker and the Governor are so genuine in their commitment to addressing general tort reform, why not simply expand the session and do it now, when a bill is on the table. If the Senate is, as the trial lawyer backed politicians accuse, failing to lead, then Governor Musgrove and Speaker Ford should step up and deal with the problem by expanding the session and addressing the legislation. They didn’t. Either their criticisms of the Senate are just as applicable to themselves, or they are not truly serious about medical malpractice relief. Or both.
Their answer is that they don’t want general tort reform to hold up medical malpractice relief. Translation: we’re willing to give you medical malpractice for political cover, but general tort reform won’t pass so don’t attach them together or you get nothing.
Thus you find why the trial lawyers are angry. They don’t have political cover. They won the session. There is no medical malpractice relief. There is no general tort reform. There are no restrictions on venue or their legal abilities to sue at the pre-session levels.
But there is public outrage. There is a political issue. There is political trouble for certain legislators in 2003. There is a continued frustration with the Musgrove administration. Another special session with nothing to show but the cost of the session down the drain. Another failure on which a Republican candidate for governor, with a strong position on tort reform (say Haley Barbour), can capitalize and campaign.
But I may eat my words. This column goes to press before the special session has even ended. Perhaps Governor Musgrove will expand the session and meaningful, significant general tort reform as well as medical malpractice relief will occur. I’ve been wrong before, but we’ll see this time.
Brian Perry is a columnist for the Madison County Journal and editor of MagnoliaReport.com.
Reader Comments
Posted: Monday, October 21, 2002
Article comment by:
REUBEN SMITH
WE HAVE A BUNCH OF SELF SERVING LAWYERS AND
POLITICIANS THAT ARE GOING TO RUIN THIS GREAT
STATE OF OURS. WHERE ARE
THE LEADERS AND STATEMEN
THAT MADE THIS COUNTRY GREAT. WE THE PUBLIC BUSINESS PEOPLE INSURANCE
COMPANIES WILL LEAVE THEY
DO NOT HAVE TO STAY IN MISSISSIPPI TO LOSE MONEY. I HEARD ONE OUR SMART POLITICANS SAY WE
OUGHT TO MAKE THEM STAY IN THE STATE OF MISS.. TELL ME HOW YOU WILL MAKE
A COMPANY STAY IN MISS..
WE HAVE TO START THINKING]OF THE STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI AND NOT OF OUR OWN SELF SERVING NEEDS. IF WE ARE TO STAY IN BUSINESS. ARE WE
CAN FOLD AND GET OUT OF BUSNIESS THAT IS NOT WHAT
THESE GREEDY POLITICANS
ARE THINKING ABOUT.
