By a vote of 11-4, the committee opposed this section, though indicating that some statute of repose might be appropriate. Specifically mentioned was that the application of this section would bar virtually all asbestos litigation. Additionally, the committee felt that the effect of tolls in Article 2 should be addressed. Defendants are permitted to withhold the identity of the expert to afford uniform treatment of parties. The memorandum in support of this bill does not even allege that the climate for plaintiffs' experts is any different now than when first enacted.
Anecdotal evidence indicates that it is worse.
The committee voted 16 to 1 to oppose this amendment. Sections 9 and 10. The committee felt that this issue was not a procedural issue, but strictly a tort reform issue and takes no position on it. The amendment also appears to clarify the ambiguities that exist between 5031 and the Court of Appeals case Schultz v. Harrison Radiator Div. The Court of Appeals, in Schultz , allowed the plaintiff to present expert evidence on inflation, in addition to requiring a four percent adjustment to the structured payments.