Lawsuit Reform Watch

NJLRA Applauds Passage of Bill Requiring Study of NJ’s Looming Physician Shortage

The State Senate unanimously passed S-173, sponsored by Senator Robert Singer, which would require the Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) to conduct a study of New Jersey’s looming doctor shortage. 

“The New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals warned us in 2010 that New Jersey will be short nearly 3,000 doctors by 2022 if preventative measures are not taken,” said Marcus Rayner, executive director of the Alliance. “This is on top of the current 12% gap between physician supply and demand.

“It’s encouraging that the Legislature is taking this issue seriously and trying to avert a crisis situation.

“New Jersey’s doctors, especially those in high-risk specialties, carry some of the highest liability insurance premiums in the country.  It is becoming harder for the average physician to undertake the expense of practicing in New Jersey when so many other states have enacted cost-saving liability reform during the past several years.

If enacted, S-173 would convene a strategic planning summit of stakeholders.   The Department would be required to report findings and recommendations to the Governor and Legislature six months after enactment. 

The legislation was approved by a vote of 40 – 0.  It awaits action by the General Assembly. 

New this week…

Assemblyman Herb Conaway, chair of the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee, reintroduced legislation granting civil immunity for certain volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and federally qualified health centers. 

A volunteer physician is defined in this bill, A-2178, as a physician who is retired but maintains licensed and is not receiving compensation for patient care. 

New Jersey is projected to be short by nearly 3,000 physicians by the end of the decade.  Medical specialties, including OB-GYNs, are expected to be among the hardest hit.  By protecting volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and federally qualified health centers – acting in good faith – from liability, A-2178 would remove a significant disincentive to practice in areas in which there is high demand for such services. 

Assemblyman Conaway is also the sponsor of A-1806, which would accomplish similar objectives and reverse the 2010 New Jersey Supreme Court decision in Ryan v. Renny.  The decision gutted the state’s affidavit of merit statute. 

Prefiled Civil Justice Bills

The following pieces of legislation were prefiled for introduction for the new legislative session, which officially began on January 10^th.   Please contact NJLRA if you would like additional information about any of the following:

Summary	New Bill #	Old Bill #	Sponsors
Extends $50 million cap on appeal bonds in civil actions to all industries in New Jersey	A241	A2473	Schaer, McKeon
Permits litigants contesting class certification the right to immediately appeal that ruling.	A894	A4135	Chiusano, Wisniewski
Caps noneconomic damages in medical malpractice actions at $250,000.	A966	A1367/S610	Weber, Chiusano, McHose
Establishes a medical malpractice part in the Superior Court.	A1689	A260	Russo
Concerns liability in good faith treatment cases, standards of care, insurance coverage for medical malpractice actions and also sets time limits on medical malpractice claims being filed.	A1806	A1982/S670	Conaway, O'Scanlon, Weber, Handlin, McHose, Angelini, Riley, Huttle, Chiusano
Establishes limits for certain damages in medical malpractice actions.	A1926	A1806/S1844	Casagrande

Item of note: last day of the 2010-2011 voting session

A-3304, which NJLRA opposes, is scheduled for consideration by the full Assembly today.  If enacted, this legislation would make the 2008 False Claims Act retroactively applicable to alleged offenses occurring up to 14 years ago, from March 1998.

A lot can happen in nearly 14 years.  Companies change. Employees change.  Exonerating evidence is harder to come by.

But this bill doesn’t take any of that into consideration.  Instead, a company – no matter how big or small, equipped with a legal department or not – may be forced to defend itself against a False Claims lawsuit without the benefit of time-sensitive exonerating material. 

More importantly, A-3304’s retroactive application of the False Claims Act is unconstitutional, and puts companies that do business in the State of New Jersey in serious danger of unfair and unjust litigation abuse. 

A-265 Receives Broad Support in the Assembly Judiciary Committee

What do the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, the New Jersey Chamber of Commerce, NJBIA, New Jersey Retail Merchants Association, National Federation of Independent Business-New Jersey, Chamber of Commerce of Southern New Jersey, Chemistry Council of New Jersey, New Jersey Food Council, and the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey have in common?

All were present to support A-265, sponsored by Assemblyman David Russo, which would create specialized business courts in New Jersey.  Chairman Peter Barnes noted the wide range of support. 

Legal issues involving businesses are complex, laden with terminology and evidence which is unfamiliar to the common court.  Highly technical matters are identified and addressed at great cost to both businesses and taxpayers alike.  The advantage of a business court is that it would permit business-related judicial matters to be heard by courts with an established background and knowledge of such litigation.  A majority of northeastern states already have a business court in place, and it is actively under consideration by several others. 

Establishing a business court doesn’t just improve the efficiency of our court system – it sends a strong message to businesses that New Jersey is a solid place in which to expand and hire workers. 

A-265 was posted today for discussion only.  NJLRA looks forward to the bill’s reintroduction and advancement in the 215^th legislative session, which begins next week.  You can download a copy of NJLRA's testimony in support of business courts here.  

Legislation to create a business court in New Jersey on AJU agenda for discussion

A-265 would create a specialized business court within the New Jersey Superior Court.  

Legal issues involving businesses are increasingly complex, laden with terminology and evidence which is unfamiliar to the common court.  Highly technical matters are identified and addressed at great cost to both businesses and taxpayers alike. 

And unsurprisingly, we are among a minority of states on the east coast which do not have a business court in place.

NJLRA supports A-265 because it would permit narrow business-related judicial matters to be heard by courts with an established background and knowledge of business litigation.  And with an unemployment rate in excess of 9 percent – the highest in the region – the creation of a business court serves as an incentive for leading employers to increase their business presence in New Jersey.  The highly specialized industries, including the life sciences, which are affected by this legislation have the potential to create long-term, high paying jobs that will be essential to growing our state’s economy over the next several years.   

It is sponsored by Assemblyman David Russo (R-Midland Park). 

Legislative Update

A-3434, which NJLRA opposes, was passed in the Assembly yesterday by a vote of 44-27.  This bill, which requires a review of consumer contract for unconscionability, may actually be in conflict with Federal law under a U.S. Supreme Court decision handed down on April 27th, 2011 in AT&T vs. Concepcion.  In that decision, the Court ruled that "[w]hen state law prohibits outright the arbitration of a particular type of claim, the FAA [Federal Arbitration Act] displaces the conflicting rule."  Please click here for more information. 

Statute of limitations bill, A-3929, advanced by committee

The Assembly Regulated Professions Committee unanimously approved A-3929, which requires certain civil actions against certain licensed professionals to be brought within two years, down from six.

**Legislative Updates**

Assemblyman Upendra Chivukula’s “Trade Secrets Act” was passed unanimously by the General Assembly during Monday’s voting session.  Under A-921/S-2456, a company or organization would be able to sue for damages or losses that result from someone taking proprietary information (a recipe, chemical formula, invention, intellectual property, etc.) and trying to profit from it by selling it or manufacturing it.  If I take a secret recipe for a food item, sell it and make money from it, for instance, I would have to pay royalties to the company or person from whom I stole it.   A-921/S-2456 has now passed both houses and has the support of NJLRA. 

On the agenda for Thursday’s Assembly Regulated Professions Committee hearing is A-3929, which would require civil actions against certain licensed professionals (including most doctors) to be brought within two years instead of six.  This is especially important as witnesses become unavailable and records are destroyed over the extended period.  NJLRA supports this bill and looks forward to the committee’s favorable passage.  It is sponsored by Assemblyman Vincent Prieto (D-Hudson).

The Lame Duck Season is upon us

The so-called “lame duck” session of the Legislature – the period between Election Day and the start of the next legislative session in January – is traditionally a period of frenetic lawmaking activity.  For outgoing legislators who may be retiring or have not been reelected, it is the very last chance they have to shepherd bills through the democratic process. 

NJLRA has five bills which it hopes will advance:

A-2473/S-480, which would apply the $50 million appeal bond cap enjoyed by tobacco companies to all businesses in New Jersey, so they do not have to prepay in order to appeal a judicial decision.

A-3333/S-2855, which would limit causes of actions under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act to consumers who suffer an ascertainable loss (as opposed to businesses), and make the Act applicable only to transactions which occur in New Jersey. 

A-4228/S-3028, the “New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Server Fair Liability Act.” This bill would prevent drunken motorists, convicted of DUI, from suing licensed beverage servers who served them in the event they drive drunk and cause themselves injury.  (Yes, thanks to the New Jersey Supreme Court, we need legislation to clarify that drunk drivers cannot legally profit from their irresponsibility).

A-4135, which would allow defendants the right to immediately appeal a class action certification.

A-1982/S-760, which would address skyrocketing medical malpractice premiums and a consequential physician shortage in certain specialties by: protecting volunteer physicians acting in good faith from liability; prevent insurance companies from immediately imposing an increase on doctors who are named in a malpractice suit; require physicians providing expert testimony to be licensed in New Jersey and board certified in the appropriate specialty; and reverse the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Ryan v. Renny, which gutted the Affidavit of Merit Statute enacted in 2004. 

LRW will keep you abreast should any of the aforementioned bills advanced.  For the most up-to-date legislative calendar, click here to visit the Legislature’s website. 

Survey: South Jersey Becoming a Lawsuit Mecca

A majority of New Jersey’s small business owners want the Legislature to address legal reform, according to a Rutgers-Eagleton survey. 

And business owners in the Philly suburbs are the most likely to be taken to court. 

The survey found that the majority of New Jersey’s small business owners aren’t happy with the state’s culture of litigation:

• 84% of those surveyed rate the state’s business climate as “fair” or “poor,” and an astounding 87% say they want the Legislature to prioritize legal reform. 
• 24% of businesses statewide have been threatened with litigation in the past five years, but that number jumps to 40% among South Jersey businesses. 
• Overall, 1-in-4 South Jersey small businesses have actually been brought to court during the past five years.  The chances of courtroom litigation also increase with a business’s longevity and growth.
• Two-thirds of South Jersey businesses saw an increase in their liability insurance premiums during this time period, even if they haven’t been sued.

Marcus Rayner, NJLRA's executive director, released the following statement:

“It’s clear that New Jersey’s liability laws put the state at a disadvantage,” said Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance.  But that disadvantage is exacerbated if a business happens to operate in the suburbs of Philadelphia.”

“Every time a lawsuit is filed against one of New Jersey’s small businesses, every business’s insurance costs threaten to rise.  Business owners are telling us that even if it’s not their business being sued today, they still might incur costs and will need to make judgments about where to invest their business’s resources."

“This is not the kind of restraint we ought to have in a state with a 9.2% unemployment rate.  When 87% of small business owners in a state want change, it’s time for the Legislature to act.” 

The survey was conducted by the Eagleton Institute of Politics at Rutgers University.    Full results can be found our website, http://njlra.org.

New Jersey Trade Secrets Act Advances

Admittedly, when I think of “trade secrets,” I tend to think of multiples of, well, Trade Secret. 

But in New Jersey, the “trade secrets” referred to an important piece of legislation, S-2456, which unanimously passed the Senate Commerce Committee on Monday. 

Trade secrets aren’t the same as patents.  For instance, you might patent a life-saving drug, but the New Jersey Trade Secrets Act might refer to the process behind its manufacture.

Under A-921/S-2456, a company or organization would be able to sue for damages or losses that result from someone taking proprietary information (a recipe, chemical formula, invention, intellectual property, etc.) and trying to profit from it by selling it or manufacturing it.  If I take a secret recipe for a food item, sell it and make money from it, I would have to pay royalties to the company or person from whom I stole it.   

A-921 passed the full Assembly in late 2010.  Its Senate counterpart, however, was amended before being voted out of Committee, so the Assembly will need to vote on the amended version before it heads to the Governor’s desk.   

New Jersey is, of course, among a minority of states which have not passed the Trade Secrets Act.  More information about the Act can be found in the New Jersey Law Journal and on the Legislature’s homepage. 

Assemblyman Cryan: “Everybody wins if we curb frivolous lawsuits."

One thing is clear: NJ's hospitality industry could be severely impacted by Voss v.  Tranquilino.

Here are some highlights from Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan’s (D-Union) keynote address at NJLRA’s annual Fall Membership Luncheon:

"As much as we try to help new businesses establish, hire people and flourish, we need to devote the same sort of efforts to making sure existing businesses and industries flourish. We all know that tort reform goes a long way to removing the obstacles that exist and actually prevent businesses and industries from growing.

"We've got to be able to give businesses and physicians and those who are impacted by what we [legislators] do some stability and some certainty in the marketplace. And hopefully together we can do that."

Cryan told the audience about his personal experience with lawsuit abuse in Middlesex County. His family-operated establishment was the third and largest of three establishments visited by an intoxicated patron. The patron, who was refused service by Cryan's establishment, fled as an employee attempted to call him cab and caused a fatal automobile accident. Cryan's establishment - the only establishment to refuse him service - ended up paying out half a million dollars in claims.

"I look at this recent Voss decision, for example, and the Supreme Court is going to potentially take down the whole hospitality industry... Have we kind of lost our way a little bit in terms of who's responsible for what?

The case refers to the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Voss v. Tranquilino earlier this year, which permitted an Ocean County motorcyclist to sue the establishment which served him for bodily injuries he sustained while driving under the influence.

"Tort reform isn't a Republican or Democrat issue - it's an economic issue," said Marcus Rayner, NJLRA’s executive director.

"That's why it's important to urge the legislature to support measures like A-3333/S-2855, which would help protect honest businesses from frivolous litigation," Rayner said.

Van Drew introduces Senate version of legislation to reverse Voss v. Tranquilino

Late last month, Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) introduced S-3028.  Like its companion bill, A-4228, this legislation would reverse the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Voss  v. Tranquilino, which allowed a motorcyclist to sue the bar for injuries he sustained while driving drunk.  

The text isn’t available on the Legislature’s website as of today, but an earlier report in the Asbury Park Press outlines some of its parameters.

Tort Reform in New Jersey, Round 1 (2002 – 2003)

We get a lot of questions about tort reform efforts pre-NJLRA, particularly with respect to medical malpractice reform.  Here is a roundup of what occurred in New Jersey, 2002-2003.  Note: Since this effort predates NJLRA’s founding, please chime in with anything else that should be included. 

• Omnibus legislation was introduced in December 2002 with the sponsorship of then-Assembly Majority Leader Joe Roberts.  The legislation, A50, was intended to address escalating medical malpractice insurance premiums and concerns over a consequential shortage of doctors in New Jersey.  Liability insurance for New Jersey’s hospitals had increased an average of 50 percent in just the previous year.  Dubbed the “Patients First Act,” A50 called for a $300,000 cap on non-economic damages for physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals, while allowing plaintiffs to collect up to $1 million in “pain and suffering” from a special state fund; tightening the statute of limitations during which an individual could file a malpractice claim; create discoverability protections and medical error reporting to help healthcare providers improve patient safety; provide a “good Samaritan clause” for physicians providing emergency care on a volunteer basis. 

• December 12, 2002: A50 clears Assembly Health and Human Services Committee; Assembly Banking and Insurance Committee, and Assembly Appropriations Committee before being passed by the full Assembly, 44-20-12.  The $300,000 cap on non-economic damages for physicians, nurses, and other healthcare professionals is removed.

• January 2003: Unhappy with the removal of the $300,000 cap, physician groups organize a three-day “work stoppage,” despite pleas from legislative sponsors for restraint.

• March 2003: The Senate removes the $300,000 non-economic cap provision from its companion bill, S2174, before releasing it from the Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens Committee with additional amendments.  It is passed by the full Senate, 32-5.

• April 2003: Doctors’ associations threaten a second work-stoppage if the cap is not reinstated.

• June 30, 2003: With heavy lobbying by the Trial Lawyers Association (now called the “American Association for Justice”) and waning physician sympathy, A50/S2174 dies on concurrence in the Assembly. 

Cryan will be keynote speaker at NJLRA Membership Luncheon

Assembly Majority Leader Joseph Cryan (D-Union) will be the keynote speaker at NJLRA’s annual Fall Membership Luncheon. 

The event will take place at the Trenton Country Club in West Trenton on Tuesday, September 13, at noon. 

Click here to RSVP now.  It’s free, but an RSVP is required.  We hope to see you there!

Anti-bullying law puts taxpayers at risk

We all remember Tyler Clementi’s tragic suicide last year, which propelled the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act through the Legislature.  Just about everyone agrees that addressing student bullying is a positive step toward deterring the conditions which contributed to this young man’s untimely death.   But as schools across New Jersey prepare to reopen next month, the unintended consequences of this law may end up may end up exposing school districts to costly liability that taxpayers will be forced to bear. 

According to a recent report in NJ Spotlight, online and out-of-school liability emerged as an area of concern for school personnel during required training sessions held over the summer.  Where to draw the line between parental and school responsibility has been a subject of debate for many years.  With the implementation of the Anti-Bullying Bill of Rights Act, however, this responsibility and liabilities associated with it have been placed solely on school districts and the taxpayers which fund them.  Trial lawyers in New Jersey have essentially been given a blank check to sue school districts on behalf of bullied children, no matter how ambiguous the term “bullying” may be. 

School districts have an obligation to enforce New Jersey’s Law Against Discrimination and to be responsive to student bullying.  But civil liability ultimately belongs on the backs of bullies, not taxpayers. 

It’s something school districts will have to come to grips with this school year when the law goes into effect.  Check out my letter-to-the-editor about it in the Courier News. 

Strassel: The Senate’s Lawsuit Factory

In case you missed it, Kimberley A.  Strassel details trial lawyers’ attempts to use a controversial case to block mandatory arbitration clauses (The Senate’s Lawsuit Factory, The Wall Street Journal, 7/22/11).  Some how-to highlights:

1) Identify a law or regulation that prevents trial lawyers from cashing in.

2) Identify a "victim" of this law or regulation.

3) Get congressional allies to turn said victim into a cause célèbre.

4) Use ensuing moral outrage to get the law or regulation changed.

5) Buy a yacht.

Is suing the bar a new drunk driving trend?

It’s been fifteen months since we brought you the case of Voss v. Tranquilino.  You’ll recall that the plaintiff in this case, Ocean County resident Fredrick Voss, had a blood alcohol level nearly two and a half times the legal limit when he plowed his motorcycle into a car (“Drive drunk, hurt yourself, and blame someone else, 4/29/10).  He later sued Tiffany’s Restaurant, where he had consumed the alcohol, for his injuries.  The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed to hear the case to determine whether a 1997 Motor Vehicle law, which barred drunken drivers from collecting damages for their injuries, trumped an earlier law allowing those who suffer a loss (usually the innocent involved) to sue the licensed beverage server. 

In the year since, the Court actually ruled in favor of Voss, essentially giving a green light to a person charged with a DUI to sue a tavern owner for any injuries they sustain in the process of driving drunk (an illegal act, last I checked). 

It doesn’t stop there, either.  The parents of a young man who was killed after driving home from a popular Hamilton bar are now suing the establishment for wrongful death.  The loss of a child is always tragic, irrespective of the means.  But usually when “drunken driver” is mentioned in conjunction with “wrongful death,” it’s the family of an innocent motorist who is suing the drunk driver – not the family of the drunk driver suing the bar. 

What we’re seeing now, in the fifteen months since the New Jersey Supreme Court decided to hear the Voss case, is a disturbing push to use New Jersey’s civil justice system to compensate criminal behavior.  Assemblyman John Amodeo introduced legislation to overturn the Court’s decision in Voss v. Tranquilino¸ and prevent drunken drivers from suing others for injuries they cause themselves.  The bill number is A-4228. 

It’s unfortunate but necessary that the Legislature clarifies that New Jersey’s legal system should not reward illegal behavior.   

Session Recap

It’s been a quiet week for civil justice reform.  Unsurprising, since failed attempts to override some of the Governor’s vetoes, school funding, and speculation over which congressional district will be eliminated during redistricting have dominated New Jersey politics.

 To recap the 2010-2011 Session thus far, NJLRA supports the following bills:

 

Read NJLRA’s Op-Ed in today’s Star-Ledger

Legislation is necessary to limit suits in New Jersey

By Marcus Rayner

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently issued a decision allowing a motorcyclist to sue a restaurant that served him alcohol after he was injured when he crashed into a car while driving drunk.

The case stems from a 2006 incident in which 46-year-old Brick resident Fredrick Voss decided to drive home after drinking at Tiffany’s restaurant in Toms River. He pleaded guilty to a DUI charge after he rode the motorcycle through a red light and into a car. His blood alcohol level was nearly 21⁄2 times the legal limit.

Pleading guilty to a DUI charge might prompt most people to accept responsibility for endangering themselves and others. In a nod to how notions of personal responsibility — and our courts’ appetite for lawsuits — have changed, Voss took to court Tiffany’s restaurant and Kristoffe Tranquilino, the driver of the car he hit.

Link. 

APP: Legislation Would Limit Suits by Drunken Drivers

Kathleen Hopkins wrote about A-4228 in the Asbury Park Press over the weekend.  This is the legislation that would prevent drunken drivers from suing restaurateurs who serve them alcohol from injuries they sustain while driving drunk (a la Voss v. Tranquilino). 

We’ll link to A-4228 once it’s available on the legislative website. 

Legislation to Overturn Voss v. Tranquilino Decision Introduced

NJLRA issued the following statement regarding A-4228, which would prohibit drunken drivers from suing restaurateurs for injuries they sustain while driving under the influence of alcohol:

"The New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Voss v. Tranquilino allows a convicted drunk driver to use our court system to profit from the poor choices he made, at the expense of New Jersey's business community.  Common sense is being downgraded to the point where drunk drivers can relinquish personal responsibility by collecting monetary damages from the restaurateur serving them drinks. 

"This decision was a kick in the gut to New Jersey's restaurateurs.  A-4228 is a first step toward protecting our business community from the Supreme Court's misinterpretation of the law. 

"The Court clearly defied the will of the legislature when issuing this decision, and I encourage leadership in both houses to consider A-4228 as soon as possible. 

The case stems from a 2006 incident in which Fredrick Voss crashed his motorcycle into a car and injured himself.  His blood alcohol level was nearly two-and-a-half times the legal limit.  He pled guilty to a DWI charge but later filed suit against Tiffany's Restaurant in Toms River under the Dram Shop Act.     The New Jersey Supreme Court sided with Voss in a 5-2 decision, stating that existing law does not explicitly bar drunken drivers for suing for their own injuries. 

The legislation is sponsored by Assemblyman John Amodeo (R- Atlantic County). 

A-4135 Introduced in the Assembly

As we know, New Jersey is a class action lawsuit magnet.  A piece of legislation introduced by Assemblymen Gary Chiusano and John Wisniewski, however, would bring more fairness to the process. 

Imagine the following scenario: A New Jersey-based business becomes entangled in a product liability lawsuit.  The plaintiff’s attorneys decide to file suit on behalf of everyone who bought a particular product, whether they were injured or not, and oftentimes without their knowledge.  The judge certifies the group of unidentified consumers as a class, and a class-action lawsuit ensues, over defense objections to the certification.  In our scenario, our business needs to go through the entire trial before it can appeal the judge’s determination of a class. 

The legislation introduced by Assemblymen Chiusano and Wisniewski, however, would grant an immediate right to interlocutory appeal.  In reality, a class certification usually means the end of the road for New Jersey civil defendants, because trying such cases is simply too expensive and burdensome.  Many settle even if there is an error in certifying the class.  A-4135 spares all parties time and expense. 

The Big Apple Needs Big Reform

A lot of tort reform –inspiring activity has been taking place across in New York these days. 

First, there is judge-directed negotiation, an approach to resolving medical malpractice cases without the years of traditional legal overhead.  As part of President Obama’s pledge to address skyrocketing medical malpractice litigation costs, New York City received a federal grant for a type of mediation between a trained judge and attorneys for each side.  Its intent is to get judges involved earlier and actively encourage settlements, which prompts quicker resolution and fewer years in an expensive limbo for the parties involved.  There are no appeals, and the settlements are often a shadow of what a plaintiff might receive in court.  A positive consequence is that lawyers may become more hesitant to pursue a case that is marginal.  A negative consequence, however, is that doctors may still feel pressured to settle, even when they haven’t been negligent. 

Next, the New York State Assembly passed A-694, a complex piece of legislation supported by trial lawyers.  It seeks to overturn the New York Court of Appeals’ decision in the case of Arons v. Jutkowitz. If enacted, opponents say, the cost of medical malpractice insurance will likely increase for New York’s physicians.   More information about the legislation can be found here. 

The last is sobering.  New York City doled out an astounding $521 million in personal injury and property damage lawsuits in 2010.  It’s sort of like a $57.88 lawsuit insurance policy for each of the city’s 9 million residents.  And this figure is seven percent lower than it was in 2009!

NJLRA live: Rayner on FOX News Channel

NJLRA Executive Director Marcus Rayner sat down with Gretchen Carlson to talk about how the New Jersey Supreme Court's decision in Voss v. Tranquilino will impact the Garden State.  

Rayner, live

In case you missed it…

NJLRA's Marcus Rayner was on Fox & Friends this morning with Gretchen Carlson to discuss the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Voss v. Tranquilino and what it means for Garden State businesses and bar patrons.  We’ll post the clip as soon as we get it. 

NJ Supreme Court finds that intoxicated patrons can sue businesses for injuries they sustain

Last year, Fredrick Voss made headlines for suing a Toms River restaurant for injuries he sustained after crashing his motorcycle while intoxicated.

Today, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of… Voss!  Only Justices Albin and Rivera-Soto dissented. 

Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance (NJLRA), issued the following statement in response to the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision, in Voss v. Tranquilino, which upheld an appellate court decision to permit persons convicted of a DUI offense to sue restaurants for injuries they cause to themselves:

"The Court today has once again defied the will of the legislature to the detriment of business and common sense in New Jersey.  The legislature sought, in plain language, to bar suits against bars and restaurants by intoxicated patrons under the motor vehicle laws of this state. Today drunk drivers can minimize personal responsibility for their actions and sue the restaurateurs of New Jersey for serving them drinks.

“Common sense tells us that pleading guilty to driving while intoxicated shouldn’t legally transfer responsibility from one party to another.  Adults who choose to break the law and endanger others should not have the ability to use our civil court system to collect monetary damages at the expense of New Jersey’s business community. 

The case stems from a 2006 incident in which Fredrick Voss crashed his motorcycle into a car and injured himself.  His blood alcohol level was nearly two-and-a-half times the legal limit.  He pled guilty to a DWI charge but later filed suit against Tiffany’s Restaurant in Toms River under the Dram Shop Act.   

The Court effectively upheld an appellate court's ruling, which found that an intoxicated motorist can sue a bar or restaurant for their own injuries resulting from being overserved alcohol at that bar or restaurant, even if they plead guilty to a DWI charge.  The Court upheld the notion that the Dram Shop Act (which established this liability for restaurants, though it was typically exercised by those innocently injured) supersedes motor vehicle law in NJ, which holds that drunk drivers may not sue the bar or restaurant.

A copy of the Court’s decision can be found on NJLRA’s website.

NJ is one of the “Worst States for Business”

Chief Executive Magazine released its 2011 survey of the worst states for business.  Unsurprisingly, Texas is ranked best, and New Jersey, New York, Illinois and California are the bottom four.  New Jersey held steady at #47 for the third consecutive year.

It will also come as no surprise that many states in the top 10 continue to address civil justice reform issues (beneficial reforms are under legislative consideration in 5 of the top 10 states).

You can read Chief Executive Magazine’s full article and methodology here, or click on the map below for an interactive map of the best and worst states for business. 

Legislative Update

The Assembly held two bills opposed by NJLRA, NJBIA, and other business groups originally scheduled for consideration on Monday. 

A-3433 would prohibit consumer contracts from requiring that arbitration take place outside of New Jersey.  NJLRA maintains that arbitration offers a meaningful and effective forum for resolving disputes without litigation. 

The Assembly was also scheduled to consider A-3434, which would require a review of a consumer contract for unconscionability and set the standard for review.  The Assembly adopted amendments to specify that the bill would not apply to arbitrations conducted or administered by a self-regulatory organization; however, the bill was held.  It may also be in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court’s April 27, 2011 decision in AT&T vs. Concepcion. 

Assemblyman Dominick DiCicco praised the decision to hold “bad business bills” A-3433 and A-3434, which he called the “first step in getting [the Legislature’s] priorities straight.”

South Jersey Towns Sing a Familiar Tune

We’ve said it many times before: taxpayers lose when frivolous litigation is filed against government entities. 

Money that could be spent on maintaining municipal services ends up being spent on attorney’s fees, even when a plaintiff’s damages aren’t apparent or quantifiable. 

The Gloucester County Times reported over the weekend that several South Jersey towns are supporting legislation they say will “make lawyers think twice about filing any old lawsuit.” S-2404, sponsored by Senator Sean Kean (R-Monmouth) would cap the attorney fee awards that public entities are required to pay when a plaintiff receives a judgment. 

The Municipal Excess Liability (MEL) Joint Insurance Fund recently released a study which showed a dramatic cost increase among closed claims over the last ten years.  Fee-shifting laws often require the public entity to pay for the plaintiff’s legal fees as well as its own, leaving little disincentive for an attorney to file suit for small damages or unquantifiable cases. 

S-2404 would cap attorney fee awards that public entities are required to pay at $50,000 if the plaintiff is awarded $50,000 or less.  If the plaintiff is awarded more than $50,000, the attorney’s fees could not exceed that amount.  For the average New Jersey town, this is a lot of money!

There is no Assembly version of S-2404 currently. 

Consumer Fraud Reform Bill, S-2855, introduced in the Senate

Senator Jeff Van Drew (D-Cape May) introduced the companion bill to A-3333 on Thursday, which would reform New Jersey’s oft-abused Consumer Fraud Act.  The bill number is S-2855.

A-3333 has received bipartisan support in the Assembly and is sponsored by Assemblyman John McKeon (D-Essex) and co-prime sponsors Ralph Caputo (D-Essex) and Dominick DiCicco (R-Glouster).   It is cosponsored by Assemblywomen Amy Handlin (R-Monmouth), Mila Jasey (D-Essex), Elease Evans (D-Passaic), and Alison Littell McHose (R-Sussex). 

Budget break. What’s a New Jersey Tort Reformer to do?

One of the most appealing aspects about tort reform is that it has the power to spur economic growth while being budget-neutral. 

That said, the legislative “budget break” – which is the period between the end of March and June when the Legislature is in recess while the Assembly and Senate Budget Committees meet to finalize the next fiscal year’s budget – can seemingly push tort reform to the back burner. 

Fortunately, there are some things tort reformers can do:

Take a look at your municipal budget.  How much money is your town or city spending on litigation costs?  It’s probably much higher than you think.  Could some endangered local government service be spared if its litigation tab weren’t so high?   Perhaps it’s worth mentioning at your next town council meeting, especially if a lot of cases are referred to expensive private firms.  You’ll be happy you spoke up when your next property tax bill is due. 

Review tort reform measures that were recently introduced.  Senators Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) and Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) recently introduced S-2800, which adds an additional protection for doctors to two of the proposals in S-760/A-1982.  The new bill addresses protecting a doctor from having his or her name linked to a malpractice suit prematurely.  It also provides protections for volunteer physicians acting and good faith and prevents doctors’ insurance premiums from automatically increasing when a lawsuit is filed.

Assemblyman John Burzichelli (D-Gloucester) also introduced several bills in late 2010 which would protect local governments from liability in certain instances where whether is to blame.  The bills were endorsed by the New Jersey League of Municipalities, which you can read about here. 

See where redistricting has left you.  Are you in a new legislative district?  Use this as an opportunity to educate your new legislators on the importance of a business-friendly climate in New Jersey.  Unless they live under a rock, they’ve heard this before.  But they might not have thought about tort reform as a means to achieving economic growth.  You can check the new legislative map here to see if your municipality has been moved to a different district.

In sum, the budget break is a great time for tort reformers to connect the dots between economic growth in Trenton and municipal and family budgets at home.  It’s a great way to keep up the momentum and learn more about your community at the same time. 

Senator Allen on medical malpractice reform, and other women’s issues

The trials and tribulations Senator Diane Allen (R-Burlington) faced in New Jersey politics were front and center over the weekend in a Star-Ledger piece by Linda Ocasio. 

A cosponsor of S-760/A-1982, which would enact many of the medical malpractice reform measures NJLRA supports, Senator Allen offers her perspective as to why it hasn’t been acted upon:

“If we had more women of either party, we’d get a lot of these things through,” Senator Allen said. 

An extensive hearing of the bipartisan, bi-cameral Women’s Legislative Caucus last year underscored the declining number of OB/GYNs and subsequent impact on women’s access to care.  After months of languish, the Assembly version of the bill passed favorably from the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee, but was later second-referenced to the Assembly Judiciary Committee. 

You can read the full Star-Ledger piece here. 

Read NJLRA’s op-ed in the Home News Tribune & Courier News

Lawsuit abuse a continuing drag on NJ business

By Marcus Rayner | March 29, 2011

“From a college student suing a Chinese restaurant for soup she spilled on herself (Somerset County), to a drunken motorcyclist who drives into a parked car and sues a restaurant (Ocean County), lawsuit abuse has an economic impact on businesses in every corner of the state. Every dollar spent fighting nonsense lawsuits is a dollar not spent on innovation or job creation, and it doesn't need to be this way.”

 Several hundred miles from here, Illinois business owners are learning about a place with an abundant supply of workplace talent and a high-quality lifestyle sure to make any entrepreneur envious. Weary from crippling tax hikes, a labor shortage and a shrinking consumer base, Illinois business owners can only dream about this land of milk and honey: New Jersey.

"Well-educated, diverse talent pool," reads the ad, placed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Want to start a business? "Innovative financing, incentive and assistance programs. Exceptional quality of life."

The catch? Here in New Jersey, businesses are vulnerable to lawsuit abuse. Everything the ad says about New Jersey is true. Christie's efforts to improve the business climate in New Jersey, combined with our state's existing assets make New Jersey fertile grounds for entrepreneurship. His outreach to the national business community is both constructive and sorely needed as we seek to reclaim our economic footing here in New Jersey. And business retention as well as recruitment will be critical to our economic growth over the next decade, a point that leaders in both political parties have made.

Click here to read entire piece.

OLS: NJ’s unemployment rate lags due to “changes” in “high end job market”

We’ve mentioned in previous posts that New Jersey’s pharmaceutical companies shed 7 percent of their workforce last year, according to a report published by the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey. 

As the Senate Budget Committee began its budgetary hearings for 2012 today, Senator Paul Sarlo asked Legislative Budget Officer David Rosen why, “despite ambitious pro-business policies touted by the governor,” the Garden State’s unemployment rate continues to exceed 9 percent. 

“The fact that N.J.’s high end job market has largely been telecomm and pharmaceuticals – [those are] two industries that have been transformed largely beyond our control,” Rosen replied. 

Of course, a third job field may have had an impact on the previous two: litigation tourism. 

A cost-free way to stop the hemorrhaging of high end jobs is to enact changes to New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, which has become one of the most abused laws of its kind.  Assemblyman John McKeon has introduced legislation, A-3333, which would make the law less hostile for high-end industries in New Jersey. 

Politicker NJ’s Darryl Isherwood has additional commentary on Monday’s budget hearing.

Ocean County Dram Shop case is heard by N.J. Supreme Court

You may recall LRW’s post last year about Voss v. Tranquilino, A-110-09 (“Drive drunk, hurt yourself, and blame someone else,” 4/29/10). 

Frederick Voss, who rode his motorcycle into a car driven by Kristoffe Tranquilino after leaving Tiffany’s Restaurant in Toms River drunk, sued both parties for the injuries he caused himself.  Claims against Tranquilino were dismissed, but the claims against Tiffany’s were allowed to proceed. 

Arguments in the latter case were heard by the New Jersey Supreme Court last week. 

I don’t need to reiterate the perils of driving while intoxicated or failing to accept responsibility for one’s actions, or the ridiculousness of suing for injuries you caused yourself.  Ruling in Voss’s favor would not only send a bad message, but would ultimately shift responsibility to the establishment and not the individual.  It would also likely result in higher insurance prices for the restaurant industry, which usually translates into higher prices as well. 

Voss v. Tranquilino’s path to the NJ Supreme Court

 Before the Court:  Drunken drivers cannot sue an insurance company for damages; however, can drunken drivers injured in accidents file a claim against the establishment which served them liquor?

1987 – The New Jersey Licensed Alcoholic Beverage Fair Liability Act, N.J.S.A 2A:22A-1 to -7 is enacted (Also known as the “Dram Shop Act”)	The Act prohibits liquor establishments from serving patrons they know, or should have known, are intoxicated.
1997 – Insurance law amendments enacted, N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(b)	A driver convicted of DWI in connection with an accident “shall have no cause of action for his or her injuries.”
2002 – Camp v. Lummino, 352 N.J. Super. 414 (App. Div. 2002)	Appellate panel decided that immunity did not apply in a host-liability case, allowing a claim by an underage drunk driver to proceed with a claim against the homeowner of the place where he had been drinking.
2004 – Caviglia v. Royal Tours of America, 178 N.J. 460 (2004)	Court upholds N.J.S.A. 39:6A-4.5(a), which bars any “cause of action for recovery of economic or nonecomonic loss” to the driver of an uninsured vehicle who is injured in an accident.
2009 – Voss, intoxicated, causes an accident with Tranquilino, a motorist	Voss is injured.
2010 – Voss files suit against both Tranquilino and Tiffany’s, where he had been served alcohol prior to the incident	Ocean County Superior Court Judge John Peterson dismisses claim against Tranquilino, citing the 1997 amendments.  The claim against Tiffany’s is allowed to proceed because they did not repeal the Dram Shop Act.  Tiffany’s appeals.
2011 – Voss v. Tranquilino reaches the NJ Supreme Court	The restaurant’s attorney argues that the 2004 case should guide the Court’s decision, and the Legislature revoked the ability of a drunk driver to sue the establishment that served him with the 1997 amendments.

Trial bar fighting efforts to restrict lawsuit lending

Can you imagine agreeing to a loan on which you would have to pay over 36 percent in interest?

Of course not, because it would be absurd unless you were really desperate. 

Many states cap the interest rate a lender can charge its customers.  In Indiana, for example, it’s capped at 36 percent – still a generous deal for the lender, but protects the borrower from being taken advantage of, and having to pay back much more than their loan is worth. 

One group says a 36 percent interest rate is not high enough – and that they should be exempt from state lending laws.  Meet the personal injury lawyers. 

Some companies are in the business of advancing money to would-be plaintiffs involved in personal injury lawsuits.  According to a New York Times report by Binyamin Appelbaum, there are about a dozen such companies nationwide, and several smaller companies.  They collectively lend plaintiffs $100 million per year in increments of a few thousand dollars to cover their housing and medical expenses.  Plaintiffs pay back their loans plus interest after lawyers win their case.  If the lawyers lose, they owe nothing.  The message seems to be that filing a frivolous lawsuit can be a pretty good investment. 

Personal injury lawyers say that’s why they should be excluded from states’ loan caps: these aren’t loans – they’re investments.  And they’re taking their show on the road to Legislatures across the country.  Oasis Legal Finance in Illinois recently proposed exempting lawsuit lending companies from Indiana’s 36 percent cap on interest.  Senator Randy Head said that Oasis’s advocacy first brought his attention to the issue, which resulted in his introduction of Senate bill 97.  It included a modest restraint on lenders by preventing them from providing anything beyond money to plaintiffs, as well as assertions from the industry that they were attempting to self-regulate in the name of consumer protection.  It was that portion that helped to carefully pitch it to the state Senate as a pseudo-reform bill and ultimately led to that chamber’s passage of it last month, with a vote of 36 – 14. 

“Most of what they proposed is contained in the bill,” the sponsor acknowledged to the New York Times. 

While “lawsuit lending” might help one who is truly besieged with medical bills and unable to work due to someone’s negligence as their case is being sorted out, it’s hard to deny that it also gives plaintiffs and their attorneys a hefty incentive to pursue the largest financial rewards possible. 

The personal injury lawyers’ trade group is trying to carve themselves out of regulation through the legislative process in Alabama, Kentucky, and Maryland as well, and may be focusing on Arkansas and Nevada in the near future.  The watchful eye of the chambers of commerce has kept efforts at bay in Kentucky, which have successfully blocked similar legislation from passing the state Senate.  And since all of these bills were introduced in February 2011 or later, we may only have seen the tip of the iceberg in trial lawyer lobbying. 

A-1982 released by Assembly Health Committee!

Assembly bill A-1982, sponsored by Assemblyman Herb Conaway, was voted out of the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee today, 8 votes in the affirmative and two abstentions. 

A-1982 takes steps to rectify the New Jersey Supreme Court’s 2010 decision in Ryan v. Renny, which gutted the affidavit of merit statute.  It also protects volunteer physicians from medical malpractice liability and prevents insurance companies from immediately imposing an increase on doctors who are named in a malpractice suit. 

Several committee members, including Assemblywomen Celeste Riley and Elease Evans, spoke of the impact New Jersey’s doctor crisis will have on women’s access to healthcare.  New Jersey already has a 12% gap between the number of New Jersey’s patients and doctors available to treat them.  This number is expected to widen by another 3,000 doctors by the end of the decade if changes are not made, and higher-risk specialties like obstetrics will be hit hardest. 

Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz, who voiced language concerns in a previous hearing, and Assemblyman Jerry Green were the lone abstentions. 

What do North Carolina, Oklahoma, and North Dakota have in common?

Tort reformers in all three states had significant victories this week.

In North Carolina, S-33 would cap noneconomic awards in malpractice cases at $100,000.  It was advancing to the full Senate for a vote as of Thursday. 

A similar piece of legislation passed the full Senate in Oklahoma.  S-863 would cap noneconomic damages at $250,000. 

Meanwhile, in North Dakota, progress was made in the judicial branch.  A group of thirteen out-of-state plaintiffs had filed a product liability suit in North Dakota, which has one of the longest statutes of limitation in the country.  The state Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendant in Vicknair v. Phelps Dodge.  Several groups, including NFIB and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, argued that the statute of limitations from the plaintiffs’ home states should be applied, not the more plaintiff-friendly statute of limitations in North Dakota. 

Governor: NJ will double R&D tax credit

Governor Chris Christie’s budget address included several tax cut proposals, the first of which would be significant to one of New Jersey’s signature industries: pharmaceuticals. 

“We will double our State Research and Development Tax credit to encourage High Tech and Bio-Tech entrepreneurs to create their next great discovery, and the jobs that go with it, right here in New Jersey,” he said. 

New Jersey’s pharmaceutical companies have been shedding jobs over the past few years, according to the Healthcare Institute of New Jersey. Doubling New Jersey’s Research and Development Tax credit, as encouraging as it is, address our hemorrhaging of pharmaceutical jobs in part.  Imagine how much further this proposal would reach if coupled with meaningful tort reform legislation to address the assault on the industry by the trial bar. 

A-3333, which would reform New Jersey’s Consumer Fraud Act, comes to mind.  After all, why should New Jersey settle for “Hellhole” status when it has the potential to host High Tech and Bio-Tech entrepreneurship? 

The prepared text of the Governor’s budget address is available here. 

A-3333 gains support

Assemblywoman Alison Littell McHose (R-Sussex) signed on as a cosponsor of A-3333, increasing the total number of sponsors and cosponsors to seven.  She joins primary sponsors Assemblymen John McKeon (D-Essex), Ralph Caputo (D-Essex), and Domenick DiCicco (R-Glouster), and cosponsors Assemblywomen Amy Handlin (R-Monmouth), Mila Jasey (D-Essex), and Elease Evans (D-Passaic). 

A-3333 calls for reforms to New Jersey’s oft-abused Consumer Fraud Act (CFA).  If enacted, A-3333 would do the following:

• The individual cause of action provided for under the CFA would be available only to a “consumer,” who is defined as an individual and specifically excludes businesses;
• Require that a plaintiff relied to his detriment on the use or employment of the unlawful method, act, or practice;
•  Give the court the discretion to award damages appropriately, not to exceed three times the amount of actual damages sustained by the consumer;
• Provide that the CFA applies only to transactions which occur in New Jersey.

More information about New Jersey’s CFA is available on NJLRA’s website. 

Good reading: Tort reformers have momentum in NJ

Sherman “Tiger” Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA), had the following to say about New Jersey’s prospects for civil justice reform in The Metropolitan Corporate Council publication:

“Of course, the litigation industry also remains strong throughout New Jersey, home to once-and-future judicial hellholes, and ATRA expects it to again push an expansion of wrongful death liability while actively opposing consumer fraud reform. But tort reformers, backed by Governor Chris Christie, have some momentum. They support three affirmative reform bills already filed during the current legislative session. One seeks to limit appeal bonds to the total value of the monetary judgment or $50 million, whichever is less. Another would revise the individual's cause of action under the Consumer Fraud Act and make other revisions regarding applicability (see trial lawyers' opposition noted earlier). The third pertains to liability, standards of care and insurance coverage for medical malpractice actions.”

President Obama: I’m willing to look at medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits

President Obama’s State of the Union address touched on two areas of interest to NJLRA supporters: medical malpractice reform and a flaw in the healthcare reform bill which requires all businesses to track expenditures to all vendors. 

Frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits affect the ever-increasing insurance premiums each doctor must carry, and these costs can vary significantly by specialty and by state.  In New Jersey, the medical malpractice crisis has lead to a homegrown healthcare crisis of our own, in which we are seeing fewer doctors willing to practice specialized medicine within the jurisdictions of the Garden State. 

Beginning January 1, 2012, all businesses would need to track expenditures over $600 with other vendors, and prepare a Form 1099.  This requires tracking down the taxpayer ID for each vendor as well.  This would be an especially difficult for small businesses, which lack the accounting resources of larger companies.  Fortunately, President Obama acknowledged the onerous burden this portion of the healthcare bill would place on economic growth. 

Excerpts from the President’s speech regarding medical malpractice and small business bookkeeping under the new healthcare law are quoted below:

Medical malpractice

“This means further reducing health care costs, including programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which are the single biggest contributor to our long-term deficit. Health insurance reform will slow these rising costs, which is part of why nonpartisan economists have said that repealing the health care law would add a quarter of a trillion dollars to our deficit. Still, I'm willing to look at other ideas to bring down costs, including one that Republicans suggested last year: medical malpractice reform to rein in frivolous lawsuits.”

Small business bookkeeping under the new healthcare law

“Now, I've heard rumors that a few of you have some concerns about the new health care law. So let me be the first to say that anything can be improved. If you have ideas about how to improve this law by making care better or more affordable, I am eager to work with you. We can start right now by correcting a flaw in the legislation that has placed an unnecessary bookkeeping burden on small businesses.”

You can read the entire speech here, via ABC’s website. 

Right after swearing in, Wisconsin Governor starts tackling tort reform

As Governor Christie prepares for his State-of-the-State address, most of us in the Garden State probably didn’t take much note of the gubernatorial changing-of-hands in Wisconsin earlier this month. 

Newly minted Governor John Walker convened a Special Legislative Session to introduce his Civil Justice Reform Package.  It’s a significant part of his “Wisconsin is open for businesses” campaign.

Expert testimony, non-economic damage award limits, and product-liability are key reforms included in this proposal.  You can learn more about Governor Walker’s pro-civil justice agenda here. 

SR – 100 – Non-binding resolution encouraging Justice Rivera-Soto to resign – will be heard in Senate Judiciary this morning

SR – 100 – Non-binding resolution encouraging Justice Rivera-Soto to resign – is being heard in Senate Judiciary this morning.

The measure is sponsored by Senators Gill, Lesniak, and Scutari.  The Assembly could also impeach the embattled Justice, who has announced his decision not to seek reappointment when his term ends in the fall, and vows to abstain from court decisions until then. 

Legislative Calendar is up (January – March 2011)

Below are the 2011 legislative committee dates for the committees of particular interest to NJLRA (Judiciary, Health and Senior Services, & Economic Growth), along with anticipated voting session dates for the Assembly and Senate.  Legislative Digest also has the complete committee legislative calendar through March 21^st online. 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 6, 2011

 SENATE SESSION 2:00 PM Senate Chambers

Voting Session: Board list to be announced

 ASSEMBLY SESSION Assembly Chambers

Voting Session: Time and board list to be announced

 MONDAY, JANUARY 10, 2011

 SENATE SESSION 2:00 PM Senate Chambers

Voting Session: Board list to be announced

 ASSEMBLY SESSION Assembly Chambers

Voting Session: Time and board list to be announced

 TUESDAY, JANUARY 11, 2011

 JOINT SESSION

Joint Session to receive Governor's State of the State Address.

THURSDAY, JANUARY 20, 2011

 SENATE QUORUM 12:00 PM Senate Chambers

1:00 PM: Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens scheduled to meet

 ASSEMBLY QUORUM Assembly Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (A) Assembly Health and Senior Services scheduled to meet

2:00 PM: Group (B) Assembly Commerce and Economic Development scheduled to meet

 MONDAY, JANUARY 24, 2011

 ASSEMBLY QUORUM Assembly Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (C) Assembly Judiciary Committee scheduled to meet

MONDAY, JANUARY 31, 2011

 SENATE QUORUM 12:00 PM Senate Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (3) Senate Economic Growth scheduled to meet

1:00 PM: Group (4) Senate Judiciary scheduled to meet

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2011

 ASSEMBLY QUORUM Assembly Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (A) Assembly Health and Senior Services scheduled to meet

2:00 PM: Group (B) Assembly Commerce and Economic Development scheduled to meet

MONDAY, FEBRUARY 7, 2011

 SENATE QUORUM 12:00 PM Senate Chambers

1:00 PM: Group (2) Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens scheduled to meet

 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2011

 ASSEMBLY QUORUM Assembly Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (C) Assembly Judiciary Committee scheduled to meet

 MONDAY, FEBRUARY 14, 2011

 SENATE QUORUM 12:00 PM Senate Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (3) Senate Economic Growth scheduled to meet

1:00 PM: Group (4) Senate Judiciary scheduled to meet

 THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2011

 SENATE SESSION 2:00 PM Senate Chambers

Voting Session: Board list to be announced

 ASSEMBLY SESSION Assembly Chambers

Voting Session: Time and board list to be announced

THURSDAY, MARCH 3, 2011

 SENATE QUORUM 12:00 PM Senate Chambers

11:00 PM: Group (2) Senate Health, Human Services, and Senior Citizens scheduled to meet

ASSEMBLY QUORUM Assembly Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (A) Assembly Health and Senior Services scheduled to meet

2:00 PM: Group (B) Assembly Commerce and Economic Development scheduled to meet

MONDAY, MARCH 7, 2011

 ASSEMBLY QUORUM Assembly Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (C) Assembly Judiciary Committee scheduled to meet

 THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2011

 SENATE QUORUM 12:00 PM Senate Chambers

10:00 AM: Group (3) Senate Economic Growth scheduled to meet

1:00 PM: Group (4) Senate Judiciary scheduled to meet

 MONDAY, MARCH 14, 2011

 SENATE SESSION Senate Chambers

10:00 AM: Committees at the call of the Senate President

 ASSEMBLY SESSION Assembly Chambers

Voting Session: Time and board list to be announced

 MONDAY, MARCH 21, 2011

SENATE SESSION 2:00 PM Senate Chambers

10:00 AM: Committees at the call of the Senate President

Voting Session: Board list to be announced

2010 in Review

            I am happy to report that the 214th NJ legislature has taken positive first steps toward reforming New Jersey's civil justice climate.  Most notably, A-2473/S-480, which extends appeal bond caps to all industries, is now on second reading in the General Assembly.  We also saw efforts to reform New Jersey's oft-abused Consumer Fraud Act with the introduction of A-3333.  Finally, the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee held a hearing earlier this year on A-1982, which would reform New Jersey's medical malpractice environment for our state's doctors.    Collectively, these initiatives would discourage frivolous class-action litigation and enhance the integrity of scientific evidence admitted in our courts.  NJLRA would like to thank all of the bills' sponsors and the legislative leadership in both parties for their commitment to advancing pro-business legislation.  Together with our supporters, we are able to educate the legislature on the importance of these initiatives.  Senator Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), who was NJLRA's keynote speaker at our Fall Membership Luncheon, said NJLRA's proposals will be a "cornerstone" of the state's effort to reposition New Jersey's economy for long-term growth.  We enthusiastically accept Senator Lesniak's wisdom. 

            If you think you have seen more of NJLRA lately, it's because we have increased efforts to get our message out.  In 2010 we re-launched our website, where you can find any of the eight op-eds I authored over the past year.  NJLRA has also been the focus of several news stories and has written a dozen letters to-the-editor.  I encourage you to visit NJLRA's Blog and Facebook page.  You can also follow us on Twitter. 

We continue to make an effort to reach out to New Jersey's small business community.  A recent poll we conducted in conjunction with the Monmouth University Polling Institute suggests that many of the Garden State's small businesses feel vulnerable to abusive lawsuits.  We are hoping to articulate the unique needs of New Jersey's small business community as we meet with legislators across the state. 

      As we have said in the past, New Jersey cannot recover from this recession without sound policies that support job growth.  With limited resources to fund tax breaks or business incentives, legal reform offers policymakers in Trenton a revenue-neutral policy change that can send a very strong message to employers all across the nation.  States which have enacted tort reform, including Texas, now lead the country in job growth and physician retention. 

            Thank you again for your continued support.  I am confident that we will continue our path toward reforming New Jersey's civil justice laws in 2011.  Please save the date for NJLRA's first Membership Meeting of 2011, which will be held on Tuesday, March 8th at noon at the Trenton Country Club.  We will discuss our plans for 2011.  As always, please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance. 

Read NJLRA’s op-ed in The Record

Small businesses have historically played a crucial role in getting the workforce back on track after economic disarray, and in New Jersey, they have served a crucial cultural purpose as well. The fact that nearly one-in-five small businesses has seriously considered leaving New Jersey should set off alarms.

FOR MANY OF US it may be hard to conceptualize, but there was a time in New Jersey’s recent history when our state was a beacon for the American Dream instead of a disincentive to it.

An abundance of natural resources, an educated workforce and low business costs made the Garden State ripe for the mom-and-pop shops and diners that at one time penetrated nearly every Main Street across the state.

Read NJLRA’s op-ed today in The Record.

There’s some good stuff here,

but where is the tort reform?

Politicker NJ: Senate releases ‘toolkit for business’ bills

TRENTON – The senate Budget and Appropriations Committee approved the release of some economic stimulus bills, part of a 30-bill packet fast-tracked by the Democratic majority as a foil to Gov. Chris Christie’s municipal toolkit.

Read it here.