Don’t need SJR8 No cap on harm
Should your child break a neighbor’s window and the final bill is $300, would you expect the aggrieved neighbor be satisfied with $25 because the city council dictated that amount? Me neither.
This is pretty much the scenario I see with the proposal for a constitutional amendment called Senate Joint Resolution 8 that would allow our politicians to cap attorneys’ contingency fees and punitive damages at a third of the amount they recover, while capping non-economic awards for losing a life or a limb or paralysis and punitive damages at $250,000 or three times the amount of the compensatory damages. Swallow all that legalese?
The resolution passed 21-10 through the Senate last week. Now on to the House.
It’s an unnecessary proposal for we the people. For more than 100 years, our right to a trial by an unfettered jury has remained inviolate. Yet now, those special interests have been pushing hard on our elected officials to limit the amount a judge or jury can award to victims of malpractice and abuse.
If SJR8 passes the House (where it has 53 sponsors) and voters should then approve it in 2018, the amendment will effectively abolish our original constitutional protection by creating what amounts to a one-size-fits-all justice system controlled by politicians with the power to change the legal-compensation provisions with future votes.
One of several negative side effects is that such limitations on legal awards can’t help but invite unscrupulous physicians such as abortionists to Arkansas, says Rose Mimms, who opposes SRJ8, specifically as an individual rather than on behalf of Arkansas Right to Life, which she heads.
Jerry Cox of the Family Council said his organization has long harbored concerns that such tort reform “might create an environment where nursing homes and similar facilities can cut costs by neglecting residents and disrespecting human life without facing meaningful accountability in the courts.”
If the largest amount an offender can lose is $250,000 for any non-economic damages they inflict upon others, up to and including death, that limitation can’t help but serve as an enticement when compared with the possibility of truly realistic financial penalties in other states.
In this debate, it seems easy pickings to paint trial lawyers as greedy bogeymen of malpractice, death or injury cases from abuse and neglect in, say, nursing homes. That’s unless you or a loved one becomes a victim.
And what happens if the costs involved in bringing one’s grievance to court reach many thousands of dollars? That’s entirely possible, even likely in some cases once the necessary witnesses, depositions, attorneys’ fees and myriad related expenses are tallied.
In essence this proposal says the lives of our mothers, fathers and grandparents, and yes, even babies have a maximum legal value of $250,000 for non-economic damages, regardless of circumstances. And that amount would be dictated not by a jury or judge, but elected legislators who are subject to the influence of special interests aggressively pushing this proposal under the rationale of promoting economic growth. Huh?
To me, this proposal is wrong and immoral. Do we want to live in a state where our court system doesn’t have the power to fully hold abusers and neglectful entities fully accountable for the actual expense of causing harm? Where the politicians determine what’s fair regardless of individual circumstances?
Fort Smith trial attorney Joey McCutchen, the lawyer passionate for preserving the Seventh Amendment and transparency in government, said: “Before you say $250,000 is a lot of money, let me suggest an Internet search for nursing-home abuse, then decide realistically what you believe an appropriate deterrent would be against those who create a dangerous or fatal environment for a loved one.
“This issue isn’t about how much money an aggrieved family can take home,” he continued. “It’s about holding a multimillion-dollar-generating nursing home and other offenders fully and fairly accountable when warranted. That requires more than what amounts to token punishment. Bottom line is politicians and special interests should never take precedent over the activities and decisions that arise in a courtroom.”
My foremost concerns lie with the people of Arkansas and fair treatment and justice for those harmed or killed through abuse or neglect. They deserve fair recompense in the eyes of a jury or judge rather than easily swayed politicos and cookie-cutter remedies.
The most interesting aspect of this latest in a series of similar failed attempts to cap medically related and other judgments is that SRJ8 is being led by GOP Sen. Missy Irvin of Mountain View, who’s the marketing director for her husband’s medical practice and clearly does a fine job.