It’s my party and I’ll blog if I want to. Since I can’t seem to find a party I like, I decided to create my own. I actually had some other names for the party, but the cool ones were already taken, so I decided it is My Party. If you wish to join – you’re in and the name works because it will be your party (wait??- no ok, when it is your party and you tell people about it -- you will tell them it is My Party so we are still good!!) Acknowledge your affiliation with My Party by forwarding it to others letting them know about My Party. At some point we may need to have a convention, which will probably consist of a grill and keg and selection of candidates.
My Party Platform
Flat tax everyone pays same. The dollar you earn is the same why not the tax. If you want to pay more great the tax form will have a line for additional contribution.
Pro-life if you don't want a baby there is a way to avoid it.
Congress -- If you pass a law then own it. If you really believe Obamacare is what's best for the country then it should apply to you.
Obamacare should not require anyone to pay for contraceptives or abortion if they oppose it morally or religious.
Congress -- Once you leave congress your salary ends. You're not working for the country so you shouldn't be getting paid.
If your title or job description has the title czar in it – it’s over. USA does not equal USSR. We elect not create positions by fiat.
Every agency should have a justification of its job and need.
Tort reform we have it – they are called juries. They hear the evidence and are in the best position to determine what is just --As in justice. An artificial cap on damages only impacts cases which have been shown to be requiring a verdict to correct harm.
No cap on salary if you can earn it through hard work power to you, but don't be a hypocrite and support tort reform. Either you are for a free market or you aren't
There is no “the problem was Bush, Obama, etc., etc.” The problem is America’s. Stop whining about what happened and start changing what is happening and what is going to happen. There is plenty of blame to go around so let’s move forward and do what has to be done.
Brent Carpenter – It’s My Party
Showing posts with label tort reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label tort reform. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Court allows Drunks to reduce how much they pay
Texas Supreme Court allows drunk drivers and others who cause car wrecks to reduce how much they will have to pay. Drunk Drivers get benefit of your premiums for health Insurance by getting credit for the negotiated rate.
This should have been front page news in papers across Texas this past week as our Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Haygood v. Escabedo. Did you see a single paper discuss this ruling? Have you heard any of the radio or TV talk shows discuss this case? Why not? Where is the outrage?
I hear comments from people every month who call me about a workers compensation claim, medical malpractice or other issues. I tell them I can’t handle it because the law has made it almost impossible. They almost invariably tell me that it wasn’t supposed to impact their case only those frivolous ones. When I ask them why they weren’t mad and outraged when the laws were being passed or the Supreme Court was “interpreting” them, they always say it didn’t impact me so I didn’t pay attention. The only outrage about our rights being taken away nationally and in Texas seems to be coming from the trial lawyers. I am proud to be in the outraged group.
So what has the Texas Supreme Court done in its latest piece of judicial activism? Their twists and turns distort the law so much it would make a contortionist envious.
The Court's decision in Haywood v. Escobedo allows the person or company who harms you or your family to benefit from the health insurance you have paid premiums for all these years.
The Court argues there ruling is necessary to prevent a “windfall” to the claimant (that would be the person injured, maimed or killed by the drunk or other reckless driver to us normal people).
They also argue they are just interpreting the law as the Texas legislature wanted. Hard to believe that is the case when the legislature actually tried to repeal the law they are “interpreting” the session after they passed it as they realized what it truly was -- which is a windfall for the drunks, reckless drivers and their insurance companies. However Governor Perry vetoed the repeal of the bill so it is still on the books.
So here we are with an Activist Court that needs to protect the drunks and insurance companies, but how? They have already overturned virtually every jury verdict for any Plaintiff that comes their way. So rather than wait until a jury hears all the evidence and votes to compensate the injured person, they have decided to limit what the jury can hear so the compensation will be even lower and the insurance companies will have to pay less, make more profits and be able to contribute to all the expensive political campaigns.
Here is how the Court accomplished this with their latest decision: Let’s start with a situation where you are hit by a drunk who has a policy of $50,000.00. You are taken by life flight to the hospital where you stay for a week. You then have to go through rehabilitation. After about four months you are mostly better. You missed a month of work and still can’t do everything, but hopefully you will get where you can sleep through the night and play with your kids without having to tell them Daddy needs to rest. You have worked hard for years and paid for your health insurance at the cost of some vacations you wanted to take, but you knew how important it was for you to provide coverage for you and your family in case a situation like this happened. The medical bills were over $100,000.00, but because of your group plan they managed to reduce the total to $35,000.00 and since you met your deductible earlier in the year, you don’t owe anything else.
You send the bills to the drunks’ insurance carrier and ask that they pay the $50,000.00 policy limits because your medical bills alone are over $100k. Pretty straight forward right? You shouldn’t even need to get an attorney to settle this case. The operative word there is shouldn’t.
The reality is the insurance company will tell you we don’t owe $100k in medical because we get to take credit for your health insurance premiums and negotiated rate so all we will owe is $35k and we don’t think all of that is related because we know you hurt your neck 15 years ago when you were putting in fence posts and saw a chiropractor one time so we think all your neck issues are related to that and not this head on collision. So with the paid amount being $35k and us taking out some of the neck issue which we believe is not related (and because we can), we are willing to settle your case for $28,500.00.
What gives them the right to get the benefit of your paying premiums all those years: “Home Office” which is what they consider the Texas Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t they? They have won virtually every case that makes it there. Now the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only evidence a jury may consider in determining medical expenses are those amounts which were actually paid or will be owed by the person injured. So all those years of paying premiums and making sacrifices for you and your family to be covered is now benefitting the person who caused the wreck. The jury is not allowed to hear about how the bills were over $100k and because you had insurance it was reduced to $35k. They are not allowed to hear about the premiums you have paid to make that reduction possible. They may not even be allowed to hear about the deductible if it was met before this wreck. All because our Supreme Court has determined that it would be a “windfall”. How is it they never seem to be have a problem when insurance companies have a windfall of profits.
So if you happen to serve on a jury or hear about someone on a jury who talks about how this person was in a wreck but only had xxx in medical you can be fairly certain that it is at least 3x that amount of actual medical charges.
For my lawyer friends we know there are also significant issues regarding how Section 18.001 will be impacted and other battles over what constitutes paid --Is a deductible to be considered? Co-pay?
Some of you may know that I spent my senior year of high school attending gymnasium in Germany (which is the German equivalent of our U.S. high school). One of the things required in history classes was a complete study of the Nazi takeover both in political and military terms, which included the apathy and violence. The rational was if you never forget you will never repeat. If you were to ask someone who lived through that time how they could let it happen they would tell you it was not a sudden change. Rights were taken away one by one and it always was something that didn’t concern them. If someone was complaining about this or that they didn’t care because it didn’t impact them. Until one day it did. Then it was too late. Everyone asked how could “they” let this have happened? And then it became clear they were the “they” who allowed it.
As always I welcome comments.
This should have been front page news in papers across Texas this past week as our Supreme Court issued its opinion in the case Haygood v. Escabedo. Did you see a single paper discuss this ruling? Have you heard any of the radio or TV talk shows discuss this case? Why not? Where is the outrage?
I hear comments from people every month who call me about a workers compensation claim, medical malpractice or other issues. I tell them I can’t handle it because the law has made it almost impossible. They almost invariably tell me that it wasn’t supposed to impact their case only those frivolous ones. When I ask them why they weren’t mad and outraged when the laws were being passed or the Supreme Court was “interpreting” them, they always say it didn’t impact me so I didn’t pay attention. The only outrage about our rights being taken away nationally and in Texas seems to be coming from the trial lawyers. I am proud to be in the outraged group.
So what has the Texas Supreme Court done in its latest piece of judicial activism? Their twists and turns distort the law so much it would make a contortionist envious.
The Court's decision in Haywood v. Escobedo allows the person or company who harms you or your family to benefit from the health insurance you have paid premiums for all these years.
The Court argues there ruling is necessary to prevent a “windfall” to the claimant (that would be the person injured, maimed or killed by the drunk or other reckless driver to us normal people).
They also argue they are just interpreting the law as the Texas legislature wanted. Hard to believe that is the case when the legislature actually tried to repeal the law they are “interpreting” the session after they passed it as they realized what it truly was -- which is a windfall for the drunks, reckless drivers and their insurance companies. However Governor Perry vetoed the repeal of the bill so it is still on the books.
So here we are with an Activist Court that needs to protect the drunks and insurance companies, but how? They have already overturned virtually every jury verdict for any Plaintiff that comes their way. So rather than wait until a jury hears all the evidence and votes to compensate the injured person, they have decided to limit what the jury can hear so the compensation will be even lower and the insurance companies will have to pay less, make more profits and be able to contribute to all the expensive political campaigns.
Here is how the Court accomplished this with their latest decision: Let’s start with a situation where you are hit by a drunk who has a policy of $50,000.00. You are taken by life flight to the hospital where you stay for a week. You then have to go through rehabilitation. After about four months you are mostly better. You missed a month of work and still can’t do everything, but hopefully you will get where you can sleep through the night and play with your kids without having to tell them Daddy needs to rest. You have worked hard for years and paid for your health insurance at the cost of some vacations you wanted to take, but you knew how important it was for you to provide coverage for you and your family in case a situation like this happened. The medical bills were over $100,000.00, but because of your group plan they managed to reduce the total to $35,000.00 and since you met your deductible earlier in the year, you don’t owe anything else.
You send the bills to the drunks’ insurance carrier and ask that they pay the $50,000.00 policy limits because your medical bills alone are over $100k. Pretty straight forward right? You shouldn’t even need to get an attorney to settle this case. The operative word there is shouldn’t.
The reality is the insurance company will tell you we don’t owe $100k in medical because we get to take credit for your health insurance premiums and negotiated rate so all we will owe is $35k and we don’t think all of that is related because we know you hurt your neck 15 years ago when you were putting in fence posts and saw a chiropractor one time so we think all your neck issues are related to that and not this head on collision. So with the paid amount being $35k and us taking out some of the neck issue which we believe is not related (and because we can), we are willing to settle your case for $28,500.00.
What gives them the right to get the benefit of your paying premiums all those years: “Home Office” which is what they consider the Texas Supreme Court. Why shouldn’t they? They have won virtually every case that makes it there. Now the Texas Supreme Court has ruled that the only evidence a jury may consider in determining medical expenses are those amounts which were actually paid or will be owed by the person injured. So all those years of paying premiums and making sacrifices for you and your family to be covered is now benefitting the person who caused the wreck. The jury is not allowed to hear about how the bills were over $100k and because you had insurance it was reduced to $35k. They are not allowed to hear about the premiums you have paid to make that reduction possible. They may not even be allowed to hear about the deductible if it was met before this wreck. All because our Supreme Court has determined that it would be a “windfall”. How is it they never seem to be have a problem when insurance companies have a windfall of profits.
So if you happen to serve on a jury or hear about someone on a jury who talks about how this person was in a wreck but only had xxx in medical you can be fairly certain that it is at least 3x that amount of actual medical charges.
For my lawyer friends we know there are also significant issues regarding how Section 18.001 will be impacted and other battles over what constitutes paid --Is a deductible to be considered? Co-pay?
Some of you may know that I spent my senior year of high school attending gymnasium in Germany (which is the German equivalent of our U.S. high school). One of the things required in history classes was a complete study of the Nazi takeover both in political and military terms, which included the apathy and violence. The rational was if you never forget you will never repeat. If you were to ask someone who lived through that time how they could let it happen they would tell you it was not a sudden change. Rights were taken away one by one and it always was something that didn’t concern them. If someone was complaining about this or that they didn’t care because it didn’t impact them. Until one day it did. Then it was too late. Everyone asked how could “they” let this have happened? And then it became clear they were the “they” who allowed it.
As always I welcome comments.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Voting - parties - judges
You still have a few days left for early voting. The lines are small and the weather is great so no excuse. Voting early is easy. Voting is your right and duty, so get out there and do it! Take action on who will be in charge of your community, state and country. The Democrats and Republicans parties are out doing what they should which is pushing for their candidates and a straight ticket vote. I don’t vote straight ticket because neither party has every candidate that I support. To be clear, I am fed up with both of the major parties. On the state and national level, each party talks about how the other will destroy the country, taxes will go up, morals will collapse, etc., etc. but it appears what the parties really want is to continue the status quo of making sure they get in office and stay in power. If the politicians are really serious about doing what is best for our country they should do what all of us have to do - don’t spend more than you have –period. Further if you pass a law you should have to live by it. You want new health care for the country? Great! Dissolve your current government provided plan you enjoy and live under the program you enacted into law. You want to change retirement fund regulations? Then do the same for your plan. Don’t tell us we have to cut back and be more conscious of our environmental footprint and then hop on your jet and fly around the country. How about calling Southwest and booking a flight like the rest of us and really saving some money? They won’t even charge you for all that baggage:>) They will even set you up with a rapid rewards number where you will get to fly free after a few of your vacations- sorry fact finding missions.
So what does all this mean to us voters? Look at the person not the party. How many times to we have to see someone elected who is not qualified just because he or she is in the --------- party? We have lost great people because they were voted out on a sweep in the judiciary by one party or the other. I have heard people say that I don’t agree with everything they are doing, but they are better than the other party. Stop!! Why are we settling for they are not as bad as the other instead of demanding the best from our elected officials. So when you are voting, before you pull that straight ticket - just think and look down the list. Then ask yourself: Do I want this person to decide my JP case? Do I want this Judge to be the one to decide my family’s case? Who is this clerk and what do they want to do or change and what are their qualifications? This brings me to Judges and their election.
In Texas we get to vote for our judges. I am a firm believer that is the right way to go. But it means you have to actually do some thinking before you vote. Judicial candidates are almost always associated with some political party. However; I suspect most of them would prefer to just run on their qualifications if they could. So each election we get to select judges based upon ----what?? If you don’t practice in front of them and/or know them you may get a sound bite here or there or a five minute speech at a meet the candidate event. I have had the great privilege of being a trial lawyer for almost 25 years and have had cases before Courts around the country and specifically Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, and Wharton Counties. There are some great judges and some great candidates for judges in races in these counties. But how do you know who to vote for? Ask a trial lawyer. We are before the judges on a fairly regular basis and if we don’t know a judge we call around to anyone we know who has been before them before we go to a hearing or trial in that Court. Why wouldn’t you do that before you vote to have someone make decisions which will impact you and your family for years to come? I am constantly amazed when one of the parties put up a candidate who is technically qualified in that they are a licensed lawyer, but has virtually no trial experience. Every lawyer has to start somewhere and get experience. I am all for that and court room experience is something that can only be gained through time. However we are not talking about hiring a lawyer. We are talking about voting for a judge. I firmly believe a candidate should have trial experience and should have practiced in the court (district, county, jp) that they hope to be elected to. What do I look for in a judge?
If the candidate is an incumbent I want to know how they have ruled on motions. Do they follow the law? Do they treat lawyers, court personnel, witnesses, juries, etc. with respect? Do they move their dockets, but understand that justice can require continuances to make sure all the parties have adequate time to gather their evidence? Do they treat all parties equally? Do they use common sense along with the law? Do they allow lawyers to do their jobs representing their clients while following the rules of procedure? What do other lawyers say about the judge? Finally what is it about the current judge that causes you concern about their ability to continue? If they are doing a good job why would you replace them simply to put someone from a different party in office?
If the candidate for judge has not sat on the bench previously I want to know how much trial experience they have? Who knows them and what do those lawyers say about them? How are they perceived by the lawyers they have tried cases against? Do they know what they are doing? If they tell you something can you believe them? Do they have an agenda i.e. do they believe all personal injury cases should be thrown out or conversely that all personal injury claims are valid and should result in a recovery? Do they believe that anyone charged with a crime is guilty and should be convicted or alternatively that most persons charged are probably wrongly charged and should be dismissed? I believe judges should follow the law and apply it to the case in a fair and impartial manner.
Finally what is the candidate’s qualification to be a judge? The fact that they have not been one before is not an issue. Obviously until they are elected (or appointed) they will not have had that experience. If you take all the other information gathered from lawyers that have been against them or worked with them you should have a good idea of their ability and qualification to be a judge.
In all this ranting, information, questions, etc. about how to select a judge did any of it come down to what their political party platform states? Why not? Because I want a judge who is impartial and not going to decide a case on the party stance on an issue, but on the law and do so impartially and fairly It seems kind of simple to me, but I am just a small town lawyer, what do I know. Let me know your thoughts.
So what does all this mean to us voters? Look at the person not the party. How many times to we have to see someone elected who is not qualified just because he or she is in the --------- party? We have lost great people because they were voted out on a sweep in the judiciary by one party or the other. I have heard people say that I don’t agree with everything they are doing, but they are better than the other party. Stop!! Why are we settling for they are not as bad as the other instead of demanding the best from our elected officials. So when you are voting, before you pull that straight ticket - just think and look down the list. Then ask yourself: Do I want this person to decide my JP case? Do I want this Judge to be the one to decide my family’s case? Who is this clerk and what do they want to do or change and what are their qualifications? This brings me to Judges and their election.
In Texas we get to vote for our judges. I am a firm believer that is the right way to go. But it means you have to actually do some thinking before you vote. Judicial candidates are almost always associated with some political party. However; I suspect most of them would prefer to just run on their qualifications if they could. So each election we get to select judges based upon ----what?? If you don’t practice in front of them and/or know them you may get a sound bite here or there or a five minute speech at a meet the candidate event. I have had the great privilege of being a trial lawyer for almost 25 years and have had cases before Courts around the country and specifically Fort Bend, Harris, Brazoria, and Wharton Counties. There are some great judges and some great candidates for judges in races in these counties. But how do you know who to vote for? Ask a trial lawyer. We are before the judges on a fairly regular basis and if we don’t know a judge we call around to anyone we know who has been before them before we go to a hearing or trial in that Court. Why wouldn’t you do that before you vote to have someone make decisions which will impact you and your family for years to come? I am constantly amazed when one of the parties put up a candidate who is technically qualified in that they are a licensed lawyer, but has virtually no trial experience. Every lawyer has to start somewhere and get experience. I am all for that and court room experience is something that can only be gained through time. However we are not talking about hiring a lawyer. We are talking about voting for a judge. I firmly believe a candidate should have trial experience and should have practiced in the court (district, county, jp) that they hope to be elected to. What do I look for in a judge?
If the candidate is an incumbent I want to know how they have ruled on motions. Do they follow the law? Do they treat lawyers, court personnel, witnesses, juries, etc. with respect? Do they move their dockets, but understand that justice can require continuances to make sure all the parties have adequate time to gather their evidence? Do they treat all parties equally? Do they use common sense along with the law? Do they allow lawyers to do their jobs representing their clients while following the rules of procedure? What do other lawyers say about the judge? Finally what is it about the current judge that causes you concern about their ability to continue? If they are doing a good job why would you replace them simply to put someone from a different party in office?
If the candidate for judge has not sat on the bench previously I want to know how much trial experience they have? Who knows them and what do those lawyers say about them? How are they perceived by the lawyers they have tried cases against? Do they know what they are doing? If they tell you something can you believe them? Do they have an agenda i.e. do they believe all personal injury cases should be thrown out or conversely that all personal injury claims are valid and should result in a recovery? Do they believe that anyone charged with a crime is guilty and should be convicted or alternatively that most persons charged are probably wrongly charged and should be dismissed? I believe judges should follow the law and apply it to the case in a fair and impartial manner.
Finally what is the candidate’s qualification to be a judge? The fact that they have not been one before is not an issue. Obviously until they are elected (or appointed) they will not have had that experience. If you take all the other information gathered from lawyers that have been against them or worked with them you should have a good idea of their ability and qualification to be a judge.
In all this ranting, information, questions, etc. about how to select a judge did any of it come down to what their political party platform states? Why not? Because I want a judge who is impartial and not going to decide a case on the party stance on an issue, but on the law and do so impartially and fairly It seems kind of simple to me, but I am just a small town lawyer, what do I know. Let me know your thoughts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
