Lawsuit Reform Watch

Legislative update: Social media and statute of limitations

The General Assembly is scheduled to consider changes requested by Governor Christie to the so-called ‘Facebook bill,’ which would prohibit employers from asking for the passwords and login information of current and prospective employees, on Monday, May 20^th.  The bill, A-2878, was conditionally vetoed by the Governor last week, citing concerns that sections 4 and 5 would “paint with too broad a brush” and prevent employers from making informed choices about hires for positions requiring social media credentials.   Assembly sponsor John Burizchelli (D-Gloucester) has stated that even with the Governor’s changes, "the integrity of the bill is intact."

The State Senate voted to revise a bill to extend the civil statute of limitations in certain previously dismissed and time-barred cases on Monday, May 13^th.  New Jersey’s business community fears that the legislation, S-2281, would leave institutions which serve children vulnerable to unfounded accusations and offer little recourse.  The bill substitution can be found here. 

Lacking support, S-2460 held by Senate Commerce Committee

The so-called 'bad faith' bill was held by the Senate Commerce Committee, due to a lack of support. 

 

Bad faith bill is bad policy for New Jersey

 

Read NJLRA's position here. 

Subway is the latest example of why NJ's Consumer Fraud Act needs fixing

We can tell you that New Jersey’s courtrooms are among the nation’s easiest in which to file a ridiculous lawsuit, but sometimes the weaknesses of the NJCFA speak for themselves. 

Two New Jersey residents contend that the size of their ‘footlong’ sub from Subway fell short of twelve inches.  And with a straight face, they were able to file a lawsuit under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act with ease.  Their lawyer is seeking class-action status on behalf of everyone who’s purchased one and meets the criteria. 

A recent NJ BIZ article (Advocates hope bill takes bite out of N.J. fraud law / Jared Kaltwasser, 2/4/13)) examines a possible remedy for the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, sponsored by Assemblyman Craig Coughlin.  A-3264 has been referred to the Assembly Consumer Affairs Committee. 

A-1831 unanimously clears Assembly Health Panel

In our ongoing quest to keep good doctors practicing in New Jersey, NJLRA supported A-1831 before the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee, which advanced it with bipartisan support.

If enacted, A-1831 would help lower liability insurance premiums, which is frequently cited as a key reason for New Jersey’s so-called medical brain drain.  Insurance premiums begin to increase the moment a lawsuit is filed.  This bill would prevent insurance carriers from raising liability premiums based on a claim of medical practice, unless the physician is found liable in court.  It would also prohibit insurers from increasing liability premiums in certain charitable or emergency situations. 

A-1831 is an important first step to help reverse the public crisis of doctors fleeing our state, which is expected to worsen significantly in the next few years.  

Practicing specialized medicine in New Jersey is comparatively difficult for recent medical school graduates.  In addition to their student loans, new doctors must bear New Jersey’s high cost of liability insurance premiums.  Specialties which carry some of the highest premiums, including obstetrics and gynecology, disproportionately impact New Jersey women.  It is no longer cost effective for many existing OBGYNs in New Jersey to deliver babies, and many have stopped doing so altogether. 

We thank the committee and Chairman Conaway for their advancement of this measure. 

Assembly Health Committee to hear medical liability reform measure

The Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee is scheduled to hear A-1831 on Thursday, marking an important step toward addressing deep concerns about the cost of liability insurance within the medical community.   

Sponsored by Chairman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington), A-1831 would prevent insurance carriers from raising liability premiums based on a claim of medical practice, unless the physician is found liable in court, and would prohibit insurers from increasing liability premiums in certain charitable or emergency situations. 

This legislation would also provide civil immunity to healthcare professionals who volunteer their services in good faith.  Civil immunity would be available to volunteer healthcare professionals who do not have an active provider-patient at the time of the emergency.  As our population outpaces the number of physicians we need to adequately care for the health of New Jersey residents, volunteer healthcare professionals will become increasingly important.  By offering civil immunity to these volunteer medical personnel, A-1831 takes a step toward addressing our New Jersey’s public health needs. 

Practicing specialized medicine in New Jersey is comparatively difficult for recent medical school graduates.  In addition to their student loans, new doctors must bear New Jersey’s high cost of liability insurance premiums.  Specialties which carry some of the highest premiums, including obstetrics and gynecology, disproportionately impact New Jersey women.  It is no longer cost effective for many existing OBGYNs in New Jersey to deliver babies, and many have stopped doing so altogether.  It’s not just a matter of addressing a significant healthcare cost-driver; it’s also about ensuring that New Jersey residents – especially women – have access to medical care.   

The hearing will take place at 10 a.m. in committee room 16.

A-3282 Passes Assembly Health Committee with Bipartisan Support

A-3282 clarifies that first aid, ambulance or rescue squads, as entities, have immunity from civil damages in certain circumstances

While this may seem to be a routine legislative clarification, the catalyst case, Murray v. Plainfield Rescue Squad, was eye-opening. 

In August 2004, a young man was shot by his own brother.  Alive and able to speak, his parents immediately called 911.  The Plainfield Rescue Squad arrived by ambulance and fruitlessly performed CPR; some believe that if he had instead been immediately transported to the hospital, Odis Murray would have had a 20 – 30 percent chance of survival. 

The Murrays decided to file a wrongful death lawsuit – not against their other son, Akeem Murray, who intentionally fired the shot that killed Odis – but against the Plainfield Rescue Squad. 

A lower court found that the because the Squad provided “intermediate life support services in good faith,” they were protected from civil liability under N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29, also known as the Good Samaritan Act. 

The Supreme Court ultimately disagreed.  The spirit of the act was to protect volunteers acting in good faith from liability so as to not dissuade volunteer responders from helping in the first place.  While it specified who would be protected, it did not define ‘rescue squads’ clearly enough for the Court’s liking. 

“The Legislature chose to provide immunity to volunteer rescue squads and to rescue squads rendering advanced life support services,” wrote Justice Barry Albin in a unanimous decision.  “By the clear language of N.J.S.A. 26:2K-29, the Legislature chose not to provide immunity to rescue squads, as entities, rendering intermediate life support services.

“If the failure to provide immunity to such rescue squads was an oversight, any corrective measure must be taken by the Legislature.”

The Legislature took the first step toward clarifying the intent of the Act today.  Primary sponsors of A-3282 include Assemblymen Eric Peterson (R-Hunterdon), Anthony Bucco (R-Morris), and Chairman Herb Conaway (D-Burlington).  Its companion bill, S-2165, is sponsored by Senator Kip Bateman (R-Somerset) and has been referred to the Senate Law and Public Safety Committee.   

Click here for Assemblyman Conaway's statement.  

The pot brownie lawsuit

A Hunterdon County Country Club may be on the hook for a prank played by two of its members. 

James Kavanagh, Jr. and Gregg Chaplin convinced their 68-year-old friend, Barry Russo, to eat a “delicious” brownie, the product of Kavanagh’s “special culinary training.”

You guessed it: the brownie was laced with pot. 

The behavior of Kavanagh and Chaplin may more closely resemble sophomoric teenage trouble making than the caliber of Copper Hill Country Club’s average patron.  According to the diabetic Russo, this prank may have contributed to his feeling “light-headed and dizzy,” among other ailments. 

Russo is suing the Copper Hill Country Club, its owner, and the two men for an undisclosed amount of money.  And no, neither the Copper Hill Country Club nor its owner is alleged to have participated in the lacing or ingestion of said brownie. 

Chaplin vehemently disputes Russo’s account. 

A red-light camera lawsuit that will have you seeing red

It’s not exactly a refund. 

If you were one of the half-million motorists who received a ticket in the mail courtesy of American Traffic Solution’s red light cameras, take comfort: the $85 - $140 fine you paid may not be the last word.   

The timing of yellow lights wasn’t officially recertified until July 25^th, prompting lawyers to argue that fines issued before that date in eighteen of New Jersey’s municipalities should not stand.  ATS avoided a trial by agreeing to a $4.2 million class action settlement. 

But don’t celebrate just yet.  You won’t be getting the full sticker price of your erroneous ticket returned.  No.  After attorney’s fees and administrative costs, you and other red-eyed motorists will receive $6.  And that’s assuming all of your paperwork is correct. 

Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon (R-Monmouth) has long argued that intersections with red light cameras pose a greater risk to public safety than those without the cameras.  Accidents have increased nearly 400 percent at some intersections in just the first year of installation. 

According to the Star-Ledger, a separate class-action suit is pending against Redflex Traffic Systems, which is the red light vendor for cameras in eight other municipalities. 

Good luck to those eligible for a $6 check.  I’m sure the legal maneuvering was worth every penny.

The "Facebook bill" will be heard in the Assembly today - urge legislators to read section 5 before voting!

A-2878, referred to as the “Facebook bill,” would prohibit employers from asking for certain social networking information from employees and prospective employees.  The bill’s intention to protect employees’ privacy is laudable; however, a provision in Section 5 of the legislation creates an unnecessary hardship for New Jersey’s business community and may place an additional strain on our court system.  This section would create a new opportunity for current, former, and prospective employees to sue New Jersey businesses. 

Under this provision, employers or businesses who seek to hire an employee to administer their company’s social media communications would risk a lawsuit if they ask a prospective employee about his or her social media experience.  An unqualified job applicant would be given the right to seek monetary compensation if social networking was raised even in casual context during the interview process or later as an employee.  New Jersey would be the only state in which an employee or prospective employee would have such leverage, contributing to a hostile business climate in which unemployment outpaces the national average.   Even if an employer is found to have committed no violation of this act, time and capital will be needed for a defense.  Small businesses would be hurt most by litigation, as it can take up to $70,000 to resolve even the most clearly meritless cases. 

As New Jersey seeks to rebuild after the events of Hurricane Sandy, it is critical that we do not impose unintended disadvantages on our state’s economic backbone.  California, Maryland and Illinois have taken steps to protect employees’ privacy without exposing their business community to new and expensive liability in addition to penalties.  Please urge legislators to consider amending or removing Section 5.   

When a child drinks cologne, by all means, sue the doctor...

It’s a story that’s easy to miss in the post-Sandy, post-Election Day, “fiscal cliff” news cycle, but one that will stick with you for a while after learning about it. 

A New Jersey appeals court has determined that an emergency room doctor must stand trial for failing to report to the Division of Youth and Family Services that he treated a child who ingested cologne. 

The 3-year-old patient, identified in court papers as “S.A.,” was abandoned by her mother soon after birth in 1998.  The Division (DYFS) placed her in the care of her father two years later.  She was brought to Jersey Shore University Medical Center in Neptune in early 2001 by other relatives, who said that she was “walking with an unsteady gait and was observed as lethargic and weak with an unusual odor on her breath.”

From a layman’s standpoint, it appears that the emergency room doctor, Daniel Yu, performed a thorough examination, leading him to conclude (correctly) that the young child ingested cologne.  She was treated and her extended family was on its way. 

Two months after the cologne incident, DYFS received a disturbing report: S.A., still under her father’s care, had been severely burned and beaten.  She had chemical burns on various parts of her body, including her vagina.  At this point S.A. was removed from her father’s custody by the Division.  She was later adopted by the plaintiff in this case, L.A. v. DYFS, A-2726-11, who is identified as L.A. in court papers. 

 

And in 2007, L.A. filed suit – not just against the Division, which evidently had some history with the child’s family – but against Dr. Yu and Jersey Shore University Medical Center.  DYFS settled with L.A. for $5 million.  No suit was filed against the child’s abuser.  

N.J.S.A. 9:6-8.10 requires anyone who believes a child is being abused or neglected to contact DYFS.  Mercer County Superior Court Judge Paul Innes didn’t believe that a toddler ingesting a foreign substance was indicative of abuse.  It’s the sort of thing that happens in the happiest of homes from time to time, to the tune of at least 100,000 childhood emergency room visits each year.  The appellate court, however, disagreed with his assessment, and the case will be going forward. 

The medical community fears that if Dr. Yu and the hospital are found liable, doctors and hospital staff will be pressured to report abuse for tiniest of infractions, overwhelming a DYFS system that is already overwhelmed and creating an adverse affect on children’s health and well-being.  The threat of DYFS involvement may discourage parents from seeking immediate care when children swallow things they shouldn’t, mask their child’s symptoms, or even deter them from bringing their child to the emergency room altogether in order to avoid the legal scrutiny and uncertainty to follow. 

The need to reform our legal system isn’t just about the taxes we pay or improving New Jersey’s economy.  It’s also about injecting common sense into real-life situations we all face. 

So, should the doctor and hospital be found liable of malpractice for not reporting that a toddler drank cologne to DYFS, you may want to prepare yourself for a barrage of questions the next time you take your kid to the E.R. for sticking a LEGO in his ear.     

Gas cans and natural disasters become the new face of legal reform

The chaos and heartache brought about by Hurricane Sandy forced New Jerseyans to appreciate the utilities and shelter we often take for granted, and incidentally, renewed our appreciation for gasoline and the containers which store it. 

You may not realize it, but if you used a gas can during Hurricane Sandy and its aftermath, it was likely manufactured by Blitz, a company in a small Oklahoma town.  And sadly, it's now a relic of the pre-lawsuit abuse era.

Blitz sold more than 14 million cans per year for the last decade, which translates to 75 percent of all gas cans sold in the United States.  Fewer than two incidents per million cans sold were reported, and most involved obvious misuse.  Pouring gasoline from the container onto an open fire was a common theme. 

Of the 62 cases filed since 1994, only two made it to court and only of those cases was successful.  The rest were settled or dismissed, notes a New York TImes report.  Nevertheless, it still cost the Oklahoma-based company $30 million in legal fees, and presumably, higher insurance premiums to cover the additional $30 million paid by their insurance companies.   Sadly, these costs of doing business in America forced the leading manufacturer of gas cans in the United States to close its 117-person operation for good.  Buying domestic also just got a bit harder. 

For New Jerseyans who retained their homes but lost their power, gasoline offered somewhat of a lifeline for those with generators to fill.  And as shelters and motels filled to capacity, generators were able to keep more people in their homes even as temperatures dropped.  A not-so-small silver lining during a catostrophic storm.   

Of course we hope we never see a storm of Sandy's magnitude ever again.  But if we do, the absence of Blitz in our markets may make generator-powered electricity a difficult commodity to deliver.  

Legislative Updates - "Facebook bill" advances, Statute of limitations bill stalls

The State Senate advanced legislation this week that would prohibit employers from asking employees and prospective employees about their social media usage.  While intended to protect workers’ privacy, NJLRA and other business advocates stress that the so-called Facebook bill creates a new provision for workers to sue their employers, and with it, great potential for abuse.  [Learn more about S-1915].

Legislation to amend New Jersey’s statute of limitations in certain civil cases was held from consideration by the full Senate.  NJLRA and other business advocates have voiced concerns about both S-1651 and S-2281.  [Learn more about NJLRA’s position].

Legislative Update - The "Facebook bill"

S-1915, which prohibits employers and prospective employers from requesting access to workers’ social networking accounts, was passed by the full Senate.  While NJLRA applauds the sponsors’ intent to protect employees’ privacy, the Senate did not amend Section 5 which would give current and prospective employees new grounds to sue businesses. 

NJLRA supported removing this clause.  Casual conversation over the mere existence of a social networking page with a subordinate, for instance, would become a thing of the past. Forgetting that could cost employers tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees – and it also gives the disgruntled ex-employee or the unqualified job applicant unprecedented leverage over their employer.   

Previous post.

ICYMI: Read NJLRA’s Letter-to-the-Editor in the Asbury Park Press

Reforms to liability laws might keep doctors in N.J.

Seeing Red All Over

When red is the only color your skin turns, you tend to take note of the sunblock products that work.  After all, it’s a bit obvious when a particular line of sunscreen fails.  Pictured is one of my personal favorites, Coppertone’s sensitive skin SPF 50. 

But under New Jersey's Consumer Fraud Act, what’s obvious to the consumer can have little bearing on the outcome.  New Jersey-based Merck just settled a longstanding class action lawsuit in which plaintiffs claim that the power of Coppertone was overstated in advertising, using words such as “waterproof,” “sweatproof,” and (shocker) “sunblock.” 

Originally developed by Schering-Plough, Merck acquired Coppertone (and its lawsuit) when it bought Schering in 2009.  The case was originally filed in 2003.  And consumers, like me, readily used Coppertone products in ignorant bliss in the interim, unaware that our UVA-protected skin wasn’t as protected as the attorneys in this case contend. 

Here’s how things will change under the settlement: Coppertone will stop using the words “sunblock,” “waterproof,” “sweatproof,” and “all day” on its labeling.  The content of the sunscreen will remain the same.  Yes, the same.  And under this $3- $10 million settlement, I will get $1.50.  According to Reuters, Merck stated that it agreed to the settlement “solely for the purpose of avoiding the burden, expense, risk and uncertainty of continuing to litigate those issues."

Nice of the lawyers to reward me with $1.50 for my patronage and leave my product formula intact.  Heck, for $1.50 I can get:

• 3 postage stamps;
• 1/3 of a latte;
• One-way bus fare in Los Angeles

I can’t get a bottle of sunblock, but apparently that’s beside the point.

Now if only I could figure out how to collect. 

NJLRA welcomes Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean, Jr. to Annual Membership Luncheon

Executive Director Marcus Rayner greets Senate Minority Leader Tom Kean (R-Union) at NJLRA's annual Fall Membership Luncheon

U.S. Chamber: New Jersey’s Civil Justice System ranks in bottom half of states for third consecutive year

The most successful corporations in the United States view New Jersey's civil justice climate as worse than most, according to a study released by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

General Counsels from the nation's leading employers said that thirty-one states do a better job of executing civil cases timely and fairly.

"What the Chamber's study tells us is that successful corporations are aware of New Jersey's reputation for attracting abusive lawsuits, and they're thinking twice before expanding here," said Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance.  "Even though the economy has improved slightly, New Jersey is no better positioned to prevent abusive lawsuits from entering our court dockets than it was two years ago."

"New Jersey was once known as the nation's 'Medicine Chest' because so much of our economy is dependent upon the viability of our pharmaceutical companies and the life sciences.  Every dollar that is spent fighting frivolous litigation is a dollar that won't be used to strengthen our economy or invest in life-saving research."

The study can be found online on the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's website: http://www.instituteforlegalreform.com/states.

Register for NJLRA’s Annual Fall Membership Luncheon!

With fall just around the corner, it’s time to register for NJLRA’s annual Fall Membership Luncheon!  This year’s speaker will be Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean, Jr.  It will take place on Thursday, September 13^th at noon at the Trenton Country Club.

Time flies, so register today! 

 Click here to register online.

Protecting volunteers may expand healthcare in Trenton, NJ

As our nation continues to debate health insurance mandates and cost-drivers that left preventative medicine out of reach for many, volunteer doctors quietly set up shop in some of New Jersey’s most underserved communities, trying to alleviate public health burdens on a patient-by-patient basis. 

Trenton is one of these communities.  In a Trenton Times report earlier this week, City Health Officer James Brownlee explained that years of funding cuts forced its clinics to greatly reduce the services they could offer. 

But there may be light at the end of the tunnel.  And that light is federal “free clinic” status.

According to the Times, such a designation would provide “essential malpractice insurance for a new staff of volunteer doctors, nurses, and other professionals who have retired from local hospitals,” bringing with it an opportunity for clinics to begin expanding their outreach once again.   

Medical liability insurance is routinely cited by New Jersey’s medical community as a disincentive for doctors to practice in the Garden State.  Such premiums, particularly for OB-GYNs, are significantly higher than premiums in other states. 

New Jersey faces a doctor shortage by the end of the decade if we simply do nothing.  Physicians who volunteer a portion of their retirement to continue treating patients help close a gap that we have yet to fill – a gap that will only increase as the number of physicians per capita decreases. 

Some aren’t convinced that assuaging doctors’ concerns about medical liability insurance increases access to care.  But in some of Trenton’s most underserved neighborhoods, it’s clear that it may make a world of difference.    

Assemblyman Herb Conaway is the sponsor of A-2178, which would provide civil immunity for certain volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and federally qualified health centers.  It was second-referenced to the Assembly Judiciary Committee after passing favorably from the Health and Senior Services Committee in May.  Chairman Peter Barnes has not indicated whether he will post it for a vote. 

The bill’s Senate counterpart, S-1165, has the bipartisan support of Senators Loretta Weinberg (D-Bergen) and Diane Allen (R-Burlington). 

Christie, Romney, and Legal Reform

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney’s vice-presidential pick.  This means Governor Christie officially belongs to New Jersey for at least another 16 months. 

With movement on pension and education reform, legal reform and medical liability reform may rise on the Governor’s agenda.  The need for legal reform has grown more apparent in recent months as studies confirmed that New Jersey will face a shortage of physicians by the end of the decade.  The State Senate unanimously passed legislation authorizing DHSS to convene a summit to analyze the shortage’s implications for New Jersey residents; its Assembly counterpart, A-1828, awaits action by the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee. 

NJ Supreme Court Says ‘No’ – Why Pet Owners' ‘Emotional Distress’ Doesn’t Hold up in Court

In part, it’s, the human-versus-animal, possession-versus- humankind argument.

New Jersey resident Joyce McDougall witnessed her cute Maltese-poodle’s violent death at the hands (paws?) of another dog in Morris Plains.  She filed suit for the cost of a replacement dog, and for emotional distress. 

A trial court agreed that she should receive more than the cost to replace her pet and issued her $5,000.  But being compensated for emotional distress was reserved for people who witness the violent death of a close family member, they said, based on the 1980 Portee v. Jaffee doctrine.  The New Jersey Supreme Court unanimously upheld that decision this week. 

In a much-needed reality check, Justice Helen Hoens observed that the vast majority of states do not allow owners to sue for emotional distress when their animals are killed.  And beyond that, the Courts have been very limited in what they consider to be a “close family member” under this doctrine.   The New Jersey Law Journal notes that an appellate court in the 1980s said it did not apply to a woman who saw her 5-year-old neighbor, with whom she was very close, mauled to death by a circus animal (Eyrich ex rel. Eyrich v. Dam, 193 N.J. Super. 244).   

"It would make little sense, we think, to permit [the] plaintiff to recover for her emotional distress over the loss of her dog when she would be precluded from any such recovery if she instead had the misfortune of watching a neighbor's child, whom she regarded as her own, torn apart by a wild animal," Hoens said.

And if the Court were to expand Portee to include animals, it would open the floodgates for New Jerseyans to sue for emotional distress after watching heirlooms or other property destroyed, the Justices reasoned.  As if New Jersey needs any help maintaining its status as a Judicial Hellhole…

TMZ: First Lawsuit Over James Holmes Massacre. Lawyer says "Somebody has to be responsible for the rampant violence that is shown today."

Yes, that would be the killer. 

A survivor of the Aurora, Colorado theatre massacre has hired an attorney and plans to file suit for his extreme emotional distress.  According to TMZ, Torrence Brown, Jr. and his attorney are considering who to target for compensation – the movie theatre, the shooters’ doctors, or Warner Brothers.  The alleged shooter, who was unemployed, apparently doesn’t make the cut. 

It’s not surprising that this massacre, like so many before it, has revived a national conversation about gun control.  Governor Christie has said that such a debate is premature for a nation in mourning.  But what is as surprising as it is appalling, however, is the speed at which Brown’s attorney unabashedly began screening potential defendants to vet the best way to leverage our legal system for financial gain. 

Brown wasn’t physically injured, but his friend, eighteen-year-old A.J. Boik, was shot in the chest and died.  

Funerals for A.J. and other victims will take place later this week.    

How will SCOTUS Obamacare decision affect NJ? Read NJLRA’s op-ed in the Star-Ledger to find out

Excerpt:

Later this week, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, more commonly known as “Obamacare.” The law’s constitutionality has sparked discussions and debate over the past three years as we vet the best way to keep ourselves healthy. But irrespective of your position on the mandates and regulations that comprise it, New Jersey has a health care crisis all its own — one that has the potential to affect how its residents access specialized medical care in the very near future, and one that the court’s decision isn’t likely to affect.

New Jersey’s crisis is a shortage of doctors. And the hemorrhaging will affect us all.

Ask around and you’re likely to hear frustration about the amount of time it takes to schedule a visit with an OB-GYN. Unfortunately, that is becoming the norm. The New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals reports that there is already a 12 percent gap between physician supply and demand. New Jersey’s medical schools graduated 860 newly minted physicians in 2009; only 370 stayed in the state. By 2020, New Jersey is expected to be short an additional 3,000 physicians needed to care for its population.

And these shortages are most profound in obstetrics, cardiovascular specialties and family medicine. In short, women will bear the brunt.

Link.

“Ambulance-chaser” bills advance

On Monday, the Assembly Judiciary Committee advanced legislation to prevent accident reports from being made available to the general public for 90 days following an accident.  Such reports are often aggressively sought by trial lawyers, which prompted Assemblywoman Nancy Munoz to dub the legislation, A-801, the “ambulance chaser bill.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee advanced a similar measure on Thursday, which would bar solicitation for 30 days following an accident.  S-761 is sponsored by Senator Nicholas Scutari. 

According to a report by Michael Booth in the New Jersey Law Journal, constituents often expressed concern to the legislators after receiving pieces of mail from attorneys referencing their “upcoming court case.”   The current Assembly version of the bill would require the word “advertisement” to be included on such mailers, in capital letters.

Legislative Alert: Insurance Fraud, False Claims Legislation to be heard on Monday

A-944, which establishes and enhances certain insurance fraud measures, will be heard in the Assembly Financial Institutions Committee on Monday, June 18th
at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 15

NJLRA supports A-944

------------------------------------------------------------

A-2165, which would change the effective date of the New Jersey False Claims Act, will be heard in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on
Monday, June 18th
at 10 a.m. in Committee Room 12

NJLRA opposes A-2165
------------------------------------------------------------

Please contact Marcus Rayner for more information about either of the above.

Until further notice, the halls of justice will be closed

In the criminal court system, it’s often said that justice delayed is justice denied. 

But for the civil court system in Union County, justice is suspended. 

A political stalemate over judicial vacancies is contributing to a shortage of judges available to hear civil cases, according to a report in the Star-Ledger.  A nearly 40 percent vacancy rate among judges, a backlog of over 800 cases, and four recall justices on vacation beginning July 1^st means that the Union County Courthouse will not hear any civil cases during the months of July and August, a spokesperson said.  Civil cases include everything from child custody disputes and divorces to the resource-draining “I-drove-drunk-and-hurt-myself-time-to-sue-the-bar” cases for which New Jersey has become infamous.  

New Jerseyans from all walks of life need access to our civil courts.  Union County taxpayers are no exception.  Once the political stalemates are resolved, the Legislature needs to get serious about keeping frivolous lawsuits of our civil courts, which take scarce time, money, and resources away from disputes which need judicial intervention.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - not the ADA attorney - right?

To the dismay of taxpayers and Americans with actual disabilities everywhere, unfortunately, it appears that the answer is “wrong.”

A University of Texas professor mused in an op-ed in the New York Times last year that affirmative-action like programs for the “ugly” should be in order, giving self-described “ugly” Americans grounds for a lawsuit under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). 

Lacking a high school diploma, the Department of Justice warned, may also count as a disability under the expanded definition of the ADA, should a potential employer reject an applicant because of it.

The Washington Times points out that the expanded definition of “disability” is consistent with a 2008 Congressional amendment to the Act, following concerns that courts were interpreting the definition too narrowly.  The tide seems to have been reversed and then some, with ADA claims rising by 90 percent in the past five years.  “The flood includes more frivolous claims than ever,” writes Luke Rosiak for the Washington Times.  “Despite the broadened law, the EEOC [Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] saw the highest percentage yet deemed ‘no reasonable cause’ last year.” 

Alas, even with the expanded definition on the plaintiffs’ side, ADA attorneys are still finding ways to te$t the bounds of our taxpayer-funded court system. 

A win for common sense

As you may recall from a previous post, a Morris County judge was being asked to decide whether a woman who sent a text message to her boyfriend just before he caused a serious accident could be held liable. 

Judge David Rand rejected the plaintiff’s effort to hold the text sender liable.   “Were I to extend a duty of care [to the text sender] in this case, in my judgment any form of distraction could potentially serve as a basis of liability,” he said. 

The case was believed to be the first of its kind.  Morris County motorcyclists who were severely injured and each had a leg amputated sued Kyle Best, the driver of the car, as well as his girlfriend, from whom he was receiving a text message at the time he caused the accident.  The injured parties claimed that she knew or “should have known” the driver would be reading the text while driving, even though she wasn’t with him in the vehicle. 

According to a Daily Record report, the plaintiffs’ attorney is planning to appeal.

NJ Needs Class Action Reform - Support A894 in AJU Committee on Monday!

A894, sponsored by Assemblymen Chuisano and Wisniewski, would allow defendants to appeal a class action certification immediately. This means that defendants who believe the court made a mistake will not have to incur the time and expense of going to trial only to have to do it all over again because the class certification was erroneous from the start.

Learn more about A894 and how it would affect class action lawsuits and New Jersey's economy here.  

Please support A894 in the Assembly Judiciary Committee on Monday, 5/21, at 10:00 a.m. in Committee Room 12

Committee members:

Assemblyman Peter J. Barnes, III (D18), Chair 

Assemblywoman Annette Quijano (D20), Vice Chair  

Assemblyman Ralph R. Caputo (D28) 

Assemblyman Gordon M. Johnson (D37) 

Assemblyman John F. McKeon (D27) 

Assemblyman Michael Patrick Carroll (R25) 

Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi (R39) 

New Jersey Needs Class Action Reform. Support A-894

A driver reads a text and causes a serious accident. But it might be the sender’s fault.

A New Jersey court will soon decide whether a woman who sent a text message to an irresponsible teenager is liable for the accident he caused.

It was a horrible accident: the Morris County teenager, tinkering with unimportant texts while behind the wheel, struck a motorcycle ridden by a couple.  They were severely injured and each had a leg amputated.  They’ve described it as being in prison, and their lives will never be the same. 

To make matters even worse, the driver, Kyle Best, received a mere slap on the wrist – a nominal fine and some community service.  The law didn’t even require his license be revoked.  He’s free to drive and risk the penalties for texting while driving again if he so chooses. 

But the couple’s attorney has filed a lawsuit against not just the teenager – but the person he was conversing with via text at the time of the accident. 

“The victim's lawyer claims the woman aided and abetted the driver's negligence by texting him when she knew or should have known he was driving,” according to an Associated Press report.  “However, her lawyer is seeking to have her dismissed as a defendant, saying she had no control over when the driver would read the message. He also claims the legal arguments made by the victims' attorney are not supported by case law.”

The Daily Record reports that Morris County Superior Court Judge David Rand is expected to decide on May 25^th whether to dismiss Shannon Colonna, the woman who sent the text message to Best, as a defendant in the suit. 

NJLRA mused over the implications if the court finds the text-sender liable: will people need to sign waivers before we can hand them a bottle opener?  It would open a legal can-of-worms bound only by a lawyer’s imagination and ability.  What’s next, “the phone made me do it”?

It’s a painful situation in which New Jerseyans have to wonder how our legal system became so unfair.  Dismissing the claim against Colonna wouldn’t right the wrongs committed against the couple.  But it would help bring common sense and personal responsibility back into the legal equation. 

Update: Conaway/Weinberg bill to protect certain volunteer physicians, nonprofit clinics, and FQHCs advances from Assembly Health Committee

A-2178 was unanimously supported by the committee’s democrats.  Using the hypothetical example of a doctor’s spouse who may create a nonprofit organization and employ said doctor as a volunteer, Assemblyman Erik Peterson expressed concern that there may be an opportunity for some to take advantage of the law.  He abstained awaiting clarification.  Assemblyman David Rible voted against it. 

Protecting those who help others is gaining traction in New Jersey

In recent years, concerns regarding civil liability have prompted some entities and individuals to think twice before getting involved during an emergency. 

A trio of bills, including one which is scheduled for consideration by the Assembly Health and Senior Services Committee on Thursday, seeks to change that.

 

A-2178/S-1165                          Status: on AHE agenda, 5/10/12

Many New Jerseyans rely on healthcare services offered by federally qualified health centers, nonprofit clinics, and retired-but-certified volunteer physicians who provide treatment.  The threat of liability for these individuals and entities, however, is a powerful disincentive.   Legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Herb Conaway and Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg would provide civil immunity to the aforementioned acting in good faith. 

 

A-2099/S-1416                        Status: 2^nd reading the Assembly

When a West Virginia woman was unable to speak after calling 9-1-1, first responders arrived at her home but did not have consent to forcibly enter.  She was later found dead by family members.  An assembly committee approved legislation which would grant civil immunity to first responders who must forcibly enter a property in order to provide emergency assistance.  It awaits consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee (contact Senator Scutari).    

 

 A-832/S-852                        Status: Signed into law

Automatic external defibrillators can save lives if they are used within the first few minutes of a cardiac arrest.  That is why the John Taylor Babbitt (JTB) Foundation made it its mission to fundraise and donate AEDs to places of public assembly, according to the Chatham Patch and Mendham-Chester Patch.  The problem the Foundation encountered is that for each device donated, 8 – 10 were being rejected.  The reason, according to JoAnne Babbitt, is that some organizations, including churches, youth recreation leagues, and schools, will not accept a donated AED because of the increased liability they assume.  AEDs were not covered under New Jersey’s Good Samaritan law. 

Fortunately, that changed with the stroke of a pen last week, as the Governor signed A-832/S-852 into law with overwhelming legislative support from both parties.  Senator Nicholas Scutari was the lone legislator to vote against it.  New Jersey has joined the ranks of 43 other states which grant civil immunity to those who own or utilize an automatic external defibrillator (AED) during a cardiac arrest. 

 

Let’s hope the positive momentum help A2178 and S1416 materialize as well. 

New Jersey's doctors are on treacherous ground

New Jersey is treacherous ground for physicians. 

Few people deny that the earth is getting warmer.  And few people deny that New Jersey’s exodus of doctors (the so-called “Medical Brain-Drain”) will affect New Jerseyans’ access to healthcare. 

There are likely many reasons behind this phenomenon, as the Department of Health and Senior Services Summit (S173), if enacted, hopes to uncover.  High cost of living and a lack of tax incentives are frequently cited, as are the costs of liability of insurance (click here for one New Jersey’s medical student’s story). 

And with respect to the number of claims filed against physicians each year, New Jersey is an outlier among states. 

Comparing New Jersey to Ohio, for instance, is revealing: despite having a population which exceeds New Jersey’s by two and a half million, the Garden state had 630 medical liability claims in 2011 to Ohio’s 287.   New Jersey even managed to surpass Texas, which has nearly three times the number of residents, in the number of medical liability claims last year (Texas had 550 claims in 2011, in case you were wondering). 

“A physician shortage crisis is right around the corner in New Jersey if we do not take immediate steps to change course,” J. Richard Goldstein, president and CEO of the New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals, said in a 2010 news release. “National health reform, while laudable and needed, will only work to accelerate the time when there simply will not be enough doctors to serve New Jersey’s adults and children.”

Should meaningful medical liability reforms continue to stagnate, despite Dr. Goldstein’s warnings, New Jersey will continue to educate other states’ physicians, at the cost access to care for New Jersey’s residents. 

The Co$t of bullying

Many of New Jersey’s school districts have maintained that New Jersey’s bipartisan anti-bullying law, while well-intentioned, is a costly unfunded mandate.  A state panel agreed, which prompted the law’s sponsors and Governor Christie to allocate $1 million to the state’s local school districts in order to help them pay for staffing and training. 

As the Gloucester County Times pointed out in an editorial earlier this month, $1 million spread over 612 school districts isn’t likely to quell the districts’ concerns regarding the law’s cost. 

And as NJLRA points out in a letter-to-the-editor, with so many bureaucratic nuisances, litigation is all but assured. 

“It ought to be possible to have an effective anti-bullying strategy in each of our schools without breaking anyone’s bank,” the GC Times wrote.

New Jersey needs a strong anti-bullying law. But with respect to this particular law, the bleeding has only begun.

Read NJLRA’s letter here. 

Insanity, behold the courts!

Einstein famously said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. 

Yet, that’s the legal tactic trial lawyers have employed against Merck, one of the state’s leading employers.

At issue is whether Fosamax, a drug designed to prevent osteoporosis, caused osteonecrosis of the jaw (ONJ). 

Juries are unconvinced.  Six bellweather cases have gone to trial, and Merck is currently on a five-case winning streak.  Its only hiccup was the first Fosomax case, which ended in a mistrial.  (A subsequent trial awarded the plaintiff $8 million in damages, which was later reduced to $1.5.  The plaintiff’s attorneys have asked for a new trial on damages, which is scheduled for September).

Despite being 1-for-6, there are still 2,345 state and federal Fosamax product liability cases pending against Merck.  It’s insanity yielding to a let’s-keep-trying-until-we-get-it-right offensive.  After all, no matter how insane it seems to continue to pursue such cases, there really isn’t a downside for plaintiffs’ attorneys – just Merck, its employees, and those who rely on it for life-saving drugs. 

Cuts to the courts make their way into our homes

You know it’s serious when legal reformers and trial lawyers agree.

Legal reformers consistently argue that when the publicly-financed civil court system is inundated with absurd litigation, the brakes are put on justice for everyone else. 

Child custody cases, divorces, landlord-tenant disputes, and temporary restraining orders sought by battered women must compete for the same day in court as the guy who sues the bar after crashing his motorcycle in a drunken stupor and the woman who spills hot coffee on her lap. 

And that day in court, of course, is underwritten by taxpayers.  So when funding is cut to the judicial branch, as it was in 42 states last year, the pace of justice slows considerably.

"The impact on people in great distress, such as abused women seeking temporary restraining orders, is beyond measure in money," says Jon Streeter, president of the State Bar of California.

The simplest divorce cases can now take a year to resolve in some states.  “Such delays are not just creating inconvenience for people trying to claim money from landlords or tenants, or fight traffic tickets.  Court cuts are hitting people where they live,” writes Alan Greenblatt for NPR. 

Criminal cases take precedence over civil cases, of course. But that’s hardly comforting to the everyday Americans who need the civil court system to protect them or make them whole.  One circuit in Georgia stopped hearing civil cases altogether. 

Backlog in states have become so significant that Institute for Legal Reform President Lisa Rickard and American Bar Association President Bill Robinson III pleaded with lawmakers to take cuts to the judiciary seriously.  "When states financially starve their judiciaries, they inadvertently create environments toxic to economic growth," they wrote in an op-ed in USA TODAY. 

In case you missed it: NJLRA offers advice to NJ business owners

In an op-ed in the Times of Trenton this week, NJLRA discusses why it’s important to engage with local elected officials.  It is intended to be a guide for the state’s small business owners, but it can apply to everyone who’s ever been curious about who makes the rules by which we all need to abide. 

You can read it in The Times here, or on NJLRA’s website. 

Unnamed Trenton Bar is the latest New Jersey establishment to be sued for a patron’s intoxication

Whether you live or work in the Trenton area (or just read about it on occasion), you may remember the unfortunate death of a man who had fallen into a snow bank at the intersection of South Warren and West Front streets last winter. 

Quirino Azcona, a popular deliveryman whom friends called “Cabrera,” stopped at an unnamed bar after his shift ended at Supreme Food in the City’s South Ward in late January 2011.  Fresh snow lined the path he took to his residence in the West Ward.  Surveillance footage suggests that he was heavily intoxicated, stumbling several times before he fell into a snow bank and didn’t get up.  He laid there for an unspecified period of time, hidden from sight by the snow, before he was tragically caught in a city plow and gruesomely killed.

In addition to the City, Azcona’s estranged wife and children have decided to sue the bar. 

"The bar served him to the point where he was intoxicated," his lawyer said in a statement to the Times of Trenton.  "The poor guy got drunk, went out into the snow and got run over by a snowplow.”

Yes, the poor guy got drunk after drinking alcohol.  What reasonable adult could anticipate such a consequence?

The weather conditions certainly were a key contributor to Azcona’s accident, but I suppose the bar is a defendant when Mother Nature is unavailable.   We’ve seen similar situations before. 

We’ve all been warned about the consequences of drinking and driving (really, the consequences of drinking and doing just about anything), which is why most bar patrons take precautions when consuming alcohol.  But as the suing-the-bar-where-you-voluntarily-drank-alcohol-trend continues, the courts are allowing the intoxicated and their kin to shift responsibility to others rather than hold them responsible for their actions (see Voss vs. Tranquilino, Killarney’s in Hamilton, et. all). 

We probably won’t ever know if the unnamed bar in question is the only establishment Azcona patronized on the night of his death, or whether things may have turned out differently if he had been walking with a friend instead of alone.  But we can use his untimely death as an opportunity to remind the public to take weather conditions into account when enjoying a night out, even when planning to walk.  And, hopefully, keep others from meeting a similar fate.  This isn’t something that a lawsuit can do. 

The plaintiffs’ attorneys will argue that personal responsibility is too much of a buzz kill for patrons, so the bar needs to supervise the adults in their presence.  But judging by the comments associated with the Times of Trenton’s story, it seems that most of us agree that having a bar play nanny to its patrons is a greater buzz bill.   

Azcona certainly isn’t the first person to pass out in a drunken stupor after leaving a bar.  But if the suing-the-bar-where-you-voluntarily-drank-alcohol-trend continues in New Jersey, nightlife in the Garden State may undergo an involuntary rehab.

Touting tort reform before business

Read Andrew Kitchenman’s story in NJ BIZ about the prospect for lawsuit reform this year:

 

Advocates of lawsuit reform are touting the possibility of significant bills to reform the state's laws governing class action and consumer fraud cases, signaling what may become the biggest opening for changes since the 1990s.

A pair of bills introduced this session would limit the cost to post bonds for corporations that are appealing judgments, and would allow the subjects of class-action lawsuits to directly appeal the determination that a "class" exists.

The state's most prominent lawsuit reform advocate may be Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, which launched in 2007 to bolster lobbying on tort reform and related issues.

Rayner said the political climate is shaping up to be good for the bills.

"I think the business community has been impressed with this legislative leadership's interest with helping," along with that of Gov. Chris Christie, Rayner said.

Rayner said tort reforms in other states — including North Carolina, Wisconsin, Tennessee and Texas — increased pressure on New Jersey.

"A climate of excess litigation drives up the costs for everybody, from the business owner to the consumer," he said.

Read full story.

Read NJLRA’s letter-to-the-editor in the Times of Trenton

 

Advocating for traffic changes might be more helpful 

Carl Wilkins’ family suffered an unspeakable nightmare when their loved one was tragically struck and killed after a double hit-and-run incident. The family’s attorney has indicated that they intend to sue NJ Transit, the state of New Jersey and Ewing Township for his death, along with the women who committed this crime (“Hit-and-run victim’s family targets NJ Transit, Ewing, state, 2 others,” Feb. 8).

The individuals who killed Mr. Wilkins deserve to be found liable for their actions. Taking the law a step further, however, and suing the township, state and NJ Transit is costly and misdirected anger. There is no question that this was a tragedy. But as Ewing Township fights to keep its streets safe with fewer police officers, adding a hefty lawsuit to the agenda will undoubtedly jeopardize their ability to provide the services we have become accustomed to as taxpayers.

Suing Ewing Township won’t make crossing the street safer. But working with local and state government to address traffic patterns instead of working against them may yield the changes we need to prevent a tragedy like this from happening again.

-- Marcus Rayner, Feb 23^rd  
Trenton
The writer is executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance (njlra.org).

A dirty secret the Kiddie Kollege nightmare left behind

In 2006, children at a South Jersey daycare facility played freely.   Then state inspectors informed them that their facility existed on a heavily contaminated former thermometer factory.  A class action lawsuit against the building’s owners, as well as local, county, and state government entities found all parties liable. 

It may take several years until all of the damage done to these children comes to light, which is why the judge ordered each of these entities to pay for the children’s medical monitoring until age 24.  The fund was supposed to consist of $1.5 million for neuropsychological tests for the 100 children involved.  Early detection and treatment if health problems emerge, the order stressed. 

But so far, nearly 6 years parents were first told that their children were subjected to unsafe levels of mercury at Kiddie Kollege, not a single test has been administered through this fund. 

 

As is the case with far too many class-action lawsuits, the victims’ plight has taken a back seat to disputes over attorneys’ fees.  $1.5 million was put in escrow for medical testing last year.  But the $3 million requested by the five law firms representing the plaintiffs and $1.4 million already paid to Franklin Township’s attorney by its insurer are far from settled, delaying the children’s medical monitoring.  The township’s attorney has even asked for a new trial. 

The children who this case was supposed to be about haven’t accessed the testing that may affect the quality and duration of their lives.  But the lawyers who fought for it (and against it) probably don’t want you to know that. 

Save-the-Date: NJLRA's Spring Membership Luncheon

NJLRA will hold its annual Spring Membership Luncheon on

Tuesday, March 13th at noon, at the Trenton Country Club in West Trenton

Previous keynote speakers have included Senator Ray Lesniak (D-Union) and Rich Bagger, former chief-of-staff to Governor Christie.

This year's keynote speaker TBA. 

 

There is no cost to attend, but an RSVP is required.  Email us to RSVP - we hope to see you there!

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

Bergen County pharmacy settlement in the running for U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Ridiculous Lawsuit

A $4.1 million settlement awarded to a north Jersey man who overdosed on stolen drugs as a teen is gaining national infamy.  The U.S. Chamber of Commerce nominated it for this month’s Most Ridiculous Lawsuit http://www.facesoflawsuitabuse.org/. 

The plaintiff, who said the neighborhood pharmacy should have done a better job of guarding the drugs his friend stole, sued several partygoers, the host, and the host’s mother in addition to the pharmacy. 

The pharmacy will pay the majority of the settlement.

As of today, the Bergen County settlement is killing the competition by a 3 – 1 margin.  You can cast your vote on the Institute of Legal Reform’s website.     

"In this case, the pharmacy was the victim - not the plaintiff, who made a decision to ingest stolen drugs.” said Marcus Rayner, NJLRA’s executive director.   “Yet it is the pharmacy that is being denied justice by today's legal system and the drug user who is benefiting from it.”

“This case underscores just how much our tort system has become out-of-step with common sense and fairness.  Instead of investing in Ridgewood's local economy, Harding Pharmacy will be sending $1.9 million to the pocket of a man who made poor and illegal choices,” he said. 

Doesn’t this just make your heart, um, not swell with pride?

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). 

NJLRA Statement on $4.1 Million Settlement Awarded to Man Who Overdosed on Stolen Drug

Since you just can’t make some things up (“Man who overdosed at teen house party awarded $4.1 million settlement,” Markos, The Record), here is NJLRA’s statement:

Ridgewood drug store to pay nearly half; underscores need for legal reform

TRENTON, N.J. – Marcus Rayner, executive director of the New Jersey Lawsuit Reform Alliance, released the following statement regarding a $4.1 million settlement awarded to a 21-year-old who overdosed on Xanax stolen from a local pharmacy:

“In this case, the pharmacy was the victim – not the plaintiff, who made a decision to ingest stolen drugs.  Yet it is the pharmacy that is being denied justice by today’s legal system and the drug user who is benefiting from it. 

“The pressure to settle cases – even ones as ridiculous as this – is high, particularly for small businesses like Harding Pharmacy.  This isn’t CVS or Walgreens, with a legal department to handle such matters.  This is a neighborhood business, which settled a case of questionable merit presumably because the cost of justice is simply too high and out-of-reach. 

“In New Jersey a drunk driver can already sue a bar tender if he injures himself while driving under the influence.  Apparently pharmacies which have drugs stolen from them can be financially liable for thieves’ overdoses.  It is a classic example of abusing the system in the hopes of winning a jackpot judgment at everyone else’s expense. 

“This case underscores just how much our tort system has become out-of-step with common sense and fairness.  Instead of investing in Ridgewood’s local economy, $1.9 million will be going into the pocket of a man who made poor and illegal choices. 

Scott Simon voluntarily ingested Xanax stolen by a friend who used to work for the pharmacy nearly four years ago.   His cohorts did not seek immediate medical attention after he went into a coma.  Harding Pharmacy will pay $1.9 million.  Other parties will pay the remaining amount. 

Read Marcus’s letter-to-the-editor in today’s Record

A Florida resident, who makes a living by suing under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), is poised to make litigation tourism New Jersey’s premier industry. 

“The ADA was intended to protect consumers, not liquidate businesses.”

Read it here in The Record. 

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.