Source: http://www.nctriallawblog.com/north_carolina_trial_law_/wrongful_death/
Timestamp: 2015-07-03 15:35:42
Document Index: 335265525

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1395', '§ 1395', '§ 1395', '§ 28', '§ 1', '§ 1']

North Carolina Trial Law Blog: Wrongful Death
NC Senate Bill 33 and Loss of Liberty: How the NC GOP rolls back 235 years of independence and makes big PHARMA the new "King"
Two Hundred and Thirty-five years ago to the day, North Carolina was the first of the Colonies to authorize its delegates to declare independence from Great Britain. So how is this relevant to "tort reform" and the pending legislation called Senate Bill 33 in the North Carolina House? Well, this law, proposed by Rep. Johnathan Rhyne (R- Lincolnton), takes away an essential ingredient of Liberty of the people of North Carolina- The right to a jury trial.
Rep. Rhyne's bill says that when a citizen is hurt or killed by a negligent emergency room physician, or nurse, or hospital worker, that injured person has no right to sue for negligence. Further, the bill says that when a citizen of North Carolina is injured or killed by a defective drug manufactured ANYWHERE in the world, that citizen can not sue the manufacturer if the drug has been "approved" by a state or federal agency. Taking away the "right to redress" or "the right to sue" is the same as depriving someone the right to a jury trial. If you can't sue, you can't get a jury. The doors to the court house are closed to these people.
The Halifax resolves speciically address the right to trial by jury. In the Resolves the authors talk about the King seizing "Ships belonging to America" which "are declared prizes of War" and that the colonies have been deprived the legal right to get these ships back or enter into a process of determining the legal rights to the ships: "And ...the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried."
Rep. Rhyne's proposed legislation takes us back to the days of being subjugated to the King and the Crown. Of course, one might make the distinction that under Rhyne's law, the State of North Carolina is not "profiting" from the people. That is true, but Rhyne's law is even WORSE.
Under Rhyne's proposals, the State of North Carolina not only denies "obtaining redress" but does so to the financial advantage of international drug companies and for-profit hospitals and corporate physician groups.
This law is a glaring example of "Big Government" taking fundamental liberties of THE PEOPLE and redistributing the spoils of war to anti-liberty, big monied cronies.
Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the third President of the United States, said, "I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution."Senate Bill 33 takes away the trial by jury of people injured by negligent doctors and also those hurt or killed by defective drug products. These people are completely deprived of their liberty to hold bad actors accountable for their wrongs.Why is the NC GOP rolling back our rights to pre-independence days?Why did certain colonists remain loyal to the King? Scholars say one unifying characteristics of Loyalists to the Crown during the Revolution was this: They had a long-standing sentimental attachment to Britain, often with business ties. Also known as MONEY. How much did Rep. Jonathan Rhyne take from Big PHARMA and Medical Lobbyists? PLEASE: preserve your liberty and rights. Call Anyone on this list and tell them to vote NO to SB33: https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0AlinyCcVT4eGdGZLZU95VTREcW12RXBoLXlKU2paSWc&hl=en#gid=0
The below is from: http://ncpedia.org/history/usrevolution/halifax-resolves
The Select Committee taking into Consideration the usurpations and violences attempted and committed by the King and Parliament of Britain against America, and the further Measures to be taken for frustrating the same, and for the better defence of this province reported as follows, to wit, It appears to your Committee that pursuant to the Plan concerted by the British Ministry for subjugating America, the King and Parliament of Great Britain have usurped a Power over the Persons and Properties of the People unlimited and uncontrouled and disregarding their humble Petitions for Peace, Liberty and safety, have made divers Legislative Acts, denouncing War Famine and every Species of Calamity daily employed in destroying the People and committing the most horrid devastations on the Country. That Governors in different Colonies have declared Protection to Slaves who should imbrue their Hands in the Blood of their Masters. That the Ships belonging to America are declared prizes of War and many of them have been violently seized and confiscated in consequence of which multitudes of the people have been destroyed or from easy Circumstances reduced to the most Lamentable distress. And whereas the moderation hitherto manifested by the United Colonies and their sincere desire to be reconciled to the mother Country on Constitutional Principles, have procured no mitigation of the aforesaid Wrongs and usurpations and no hopes remain of obtaining redress by those Means alone which have been hitherto tried, Your Committee are of Opinion that the house should enter into the following Resolve, to wit Resolved that the delegates for this Colony in the Continental Congress be impowered to concur with the other delegates of the other Colonies in declaring Independency, and forming foreign Alliances, resolving to this Colony the Sole, and Exclusive right of forming a Constitution and Laws for this Colony, and of appointing delegates from time to time (under the direction of a general Representation thereof to meet the delegates of the other Colonies for such purposes as shall be hereafter pointed out. The Halifax Resolves were important not only because they were the first official action calling for independence, but also because they were not unilateral recommendations. They were instead recommendations directed to all the colonies and their delegates assembled at the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. Virginia followed with her own recommendations soon after the adoption of the Halifax Resolution, and eventually on July 4, the final draft of the Declaration of Independence was signed. William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and John Penn were the delegates from North Carolina who signed the Declaration of Independence.
Posted by Chris Nichols on April 12, 2011 at 10:50 AM in Current Affairs, Insurance Law , NC Law Changes, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
emergency room immunity, Halifax Resolves, House Tort Reform, jury, liberty, liberty, medical malpractice, NC history, NC tea party, NCGA, NCGOP, personal injury, Rep. Johnathan Rhyne, rights, SB33, Senate bIll 33, Senate Bill 33, tea party, trial by jury
Will NC be the worst state for manufacturers? The unintended consequence of HB 542: Destroys insurance and business subrogation for losses from product fauilure
I am attaching below the letter I sent to three members of the North Carolina House Select Committee on Tort Reform.
I believe that House Bill 542 may "look" good for business but have the unintended consequence of making North Carolina the WORST place for manufacturing in the entire United States. I've inserted a few comments below in [BOLD] brackets.
Rep. Stam, Rep. Weiss, and Rep. Murray:I am a lawyer, like each of you, and I would like to call to your attention what I think is a major unintended consequence of HB 542. I called each of your offices today to discuss this issue. HB 542 destroys the right of a NC manufacturer and their insurance company to subrogate on catastrophic losses caused by defective products. This hurts manufacturing, business, and insurance interests in North Carolina. Please read the below example:Products Liability Immunity Destroys Business and Insurance Subrogation: HB 542 gives immunity from suit to any company that produces a faulty product that has been "approved for sale" by any State of Federal regulatory agency. This bar would apply to insurance subrogation claims against the original tortfeasor and therefore bars insurance companies and the self-insured from recouping losses caused by faulty products. EXAMPLE. Power Plant Explosion: A North Carolina power company buys a defective industrial boiler from a Chinese (or any) manufacturing company. This product is "approved" by several state and federal agencies as required by law." [Does this sound like the Apex Chemical explosion?] That boiler explodes and spreads toxic ash over a 3 mile radius. The environment is polluted, people are made sick, and the business site is shut down. The NC business itself suffers a $300 Million dollar business and property damage loss and is sued by the State and citizens for the toxic ash injuries. The insurer for the power company (or self-insured company itself) must pay for the business loss, claims of injuries and property loss, but would be prohibited by HB542 from seeking a recovery from the negligent Chinese manufacturer. The State of North Carolina would be prohibited from seeking compensation for the loss to the environment and the toxic clean up costs. This will increase the cost of insurance for business and the State and possibly force insurers to stop insuring for loss from product defect.HB542 uses the following definitions: [See page 8 of HB542] " (1) "Claimant" means a person or other entity asserting a claim""Product liability action" includes any action brought for or on account of personal injury, death or property damage caused by or resulting from the manufacture, construction, design, formulation, development of standards, preparation, processing, assembly, testing, listing, certifying, warning, instructing, marketing, selling, advertising, packaging, or labeling of any product." (Emphasis added) "No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if any one of the following apply:"Under this very simple language above, businesses that suffer catastrophic losses due to product defects will NOT be able to recoup those loses. Moreover, what will be the effect on Business Insurance Policies? A standard loss policy would have language like the following: "If we pay a claim under your policy, we will take over your right to recover that amount from any other person or organization. You agree to cooperate with us and not do anything that will interfere with our chances of recovery". Insurers would be subrogated to the right of the North Carolina company. Because subrogation is "the substitution of one person in the place of another with reference to a lawful claim, demand, or right, so that he who is substituted succeeds to the rights of the other in relation to the debt or claim, and its rights, remedies, or securities," the North Carolina Company would have no right to recover under HB542 and thus the insurance company would be subrogated to nothing. North Carolina will be the ONLY state in the nation with such a law.This raises many difficult questions:1) Will insurance companies issue large commercial policies to North Carolina manufacturers know there will be no right to subrogate in failed products cases? Can businesses operate without this insurance? 2) Will North Carolina manufacturers receive insurance rate increases due to the higher cost risk for North Carolina claims?3) Will manufacturers avoid locating in North Carolina because they will not be protected from defective products they purchase for their business? 4) Will insurance products for consumers be impacted by the lack of subrogation for faulty manufacturing? Will home owner insurance rates increase due to the number of fires caused by defective products where there will be no subrogatable interest for the insurance company? 5) Why would a manufacturer choose North Carolina over 49 other states knowing that it had no protections from faulty products within its own facility?I ask that you stop HB542 before it further erodes North Carolina's business economy. Chris Nichols
(update) A non-hypotehtical Example of Products Liability Subrogation In Insurance
Here is an excellent example of how subrogation works in the context of product liability claims. This is a blog post from Cozen O'Conner, a national law firm that helps insurance companies recover funds from manufacturers of defective produts when those products cause damage which is insured. Here is a link to their full blog post. Lasko Recalls 4.8 Million Box Fans
The case involved a massive barn fire at a breeding farm in Hondo, New Mexico. Six world class race horse breeding stallions were killed in the fire and the barn itself was totaled. Cozen O’Connor represented over sixty sophisticated horsemen clients who had ownership interests in the stallions, and their insurers. The insurers for the horses and the barn went to great lengths to preserve the fire scene, and as a direct result of their diligence the experts were able to examine each electrical device in the barn and identify the fatal flaw in the Lasko fan motor.On March 24th (long after the fire) the Consumer Product Safety Commission announced a voluntary recall of 4.8 million Lasko box fans. The recall notice reports “an electrical failure in the fan’s motor poses a fire hazard to consumers.” The CPSC cites a “barn fire resulting in extensive property damage” as a basis for the recall.
If this fire had occurred in North Carolina under House Bill 542, the lawyers at Cozen O'Conner would have been barred from seeking recovery from Lasko. The insurer would have paid out millions and not been reimbursed by the negligent manufacturer of the fan. And who would absorb the cost of the unreimbursed expenses? Anyone who buys insurance.
Hopefully this will make a difference. This bill is not just about people injured by defective products, but also business.
This is an actual photo of the Apex, NC plant explosion at a chemical storage facility.
Posted by Chris Nichols on April 06, 2011 at 08:30 PM in Current Affairs, Insurance Law , NC Law Changes, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
#542, #NCGA, and Rep. Murray, HB542, insurance, Jr., manufacturing, NCGOP, NCHB542, North Carolina, personal injury, products liability, Rep. Stam, Rep. Weiss, Representative Johnathan Rhyne, subrogation, tort reform
If NC House bill 542 passes, we will need some new welcome signs for NC
If North Carolina House bill 542 passes, and gives amnesty to corporations that kill people, we'll need to change the "welcome signs" on all of our interstate highways.
The House Select Committee on Tort Reform will be considering amendments to HB 542 at their next meeting on Thursday, April 7, 2011 at 11:00 AM. As of right now, there will be no more public input. Those opposing this bill were allowed 8 minutes to speak on the amnesty provision. If your Representative is a member of the Select Committee on Tort Reform, now is the time to contact them and express your opposition for HB 542. The action you take today will have a great impact on the final outcome of this legislation. If you don't want NC to be the most dangerous state in the nation, call now.
House Select Committee on Tort Reform
Chair Rep. Daniel F. McComas (R, New Hanover)
910-392-3011
919-733-5786 Vice Chair Rep. Johnathan Rhyne, Jr. (R, Lincoln)
Vice Chair Rep. James W. Crawford, Jr. (D, Granville)
252-492-0185
Vice Chair Rep. David R. Lewis (R, Harnett)
910-891-4848
Vice Chair Rep. Tim D. Moffitt (R, Buncombe)
Vice Chair Rep. Tom Murry (R, Wake)
919-468-1213
Rep. Jeff Barnhart (R, Cabarrus)
Rep. William D. Brisson (D, Bladen)
Rep. Becky Carney (D, Mecklenburg)
704-332-1893
Rep. Jerry C. Dockham (R, Davidson)
336-250-7336
Rep. Nelson Dollar (R, Wake)
Rep. Bill Faison (D, Orange)
919-606-6700
Rep. Mitch Gillespie (R, McDowell)
828-652-5548
919-733-5862
Rep. Larry D. Hall (D, Durham)
919-489-0036
Rep. Dewey L. Hill (D, Columbus)
910-646-4297
Rep. Chuck McGrady (R, Henderson)
Rep. Marian N. McLawhorn (D, Pitt)
252-524-3113
Rep. Grey Mills (R, Iredell)
Rep. Bill Owens (D, Pasquotank)
252-335-0167
Rep. Diane Parfitt (D, Cumberland)
910-864-2427
Rep. Shirley B. Randleman (R, Wilkes)
Rep. Ruth Samuelson (R, Mecklenburg)
704-366-8748
Rep. Paul Stam (R, Wake)
919-362-4835
Rep. Jennifer Weiss (D, Wake)
919-678-1367
Posted by Chris Nichols on April 03, 2011 at 09:40 PM in NC Law Changes, News and Law for Non-lawyers, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
#542, dangerous state, defective products, HB542, House Bill 542, Jr., Jr. Rep. William D. Brisson, NC House, NC welcome sign, NCGOP, Rep. Becky Carney, Rep. Bill Faison, Rep. Bill Owens, Rep. Chuck McGrady, Rep. Daniel F. McComas, Rep. David R. Lewis, Rep. Dewey L. Hill, Rep. Diane Parfitt, Rep. Grey Mills, Rep. James W. Crawford, Rep. Jeff Barnhart, Rep. Jennifer Weiss, Rep. Jerry C. Dockham, Rep. Jonathan Rhyne, Rep. Larry D. Hall, Rep. Marian N. McLawhorn, Rep. Mitch Gillespie, Rep. Nelson Dollar, Rep. Paul Stam, Rep. Ruth Samuelson, Rep. Shirley B. Randleman, Rep. Tim D. Moffitt, Rep. Tom Murry, Representative Johnathan Rhyne, tort reform
House Bill 542: NC to be dumping ground for dangerous products
The North Carolina House introduced House Bill 542 on March 30. This bill grants immunity from suit to any product "regulated" by a State or Federal Agency. This Bill will make NC a dangerous dumping ground for poisonous and defective drugs and products.
The Bill was filed, all of 18 hours before it was debated. House Bill 542
Here is the relevant language: No manufacturer or seller shall be held liable in any product liability action if: 1. The product alleged to have caused harm was designed, manufactured, packaged, labeled, sold, or represented in relevant and material respects in accordance with the terms of approval, license or similar determination of a government agency, where the approval, license or similar determination is relevant to the event or risk allegedly causing the harm; or
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regulated Products Vehicle safety
These questions need to be asked: WHY DOES THE LEGISLATURE WANT TO MAKE NC THE DUMPING GROUND FOR DANGEROUS AND DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS, WITHOUT CREATING A SINGLE JOB? WHY WOULD THE LEGISLATURE LEGALIZE THE SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS?
Posted by Chris Nichols on April 01, 2011 at 12:06 PM in Current Affairs, Insurance Law , NC Law Changes, Sports, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
ALEC, defective products, House Bill 542, Jr., NC GOP, products liability, Rep Jonathan Rhyne, Representative Johnathan Rhyne, Vioxx
NC House Bill 542 may give immunity to not only Emergency Room doctors but also to doctors delivering babies
NC House Bill 542 the Omibus "Tort Reform" Bill, has a provision that on its face seems to give immunity to "Emergency Rooms" for negligence. But the Bill is very subtle in the way it defines "emergency." This information was brought to my attention by a lawyer who used to be a Hospital Administrator and know how EMTALA works. The drafters of the Bill used legal "slight of hand" to also make the Bill give complete immunity from negligence to any Doctor, nurse, or Hospital delivering a baby under anything than scheduled visit. Here is the language from the proposed law:
In any medical malpractice action arising out of the furnishing or the failure to furnish services pursuant to obligations imposed by 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd for an emergency medical condition as defined in 42 U.S.C. § 1395dd(e)(1), the defendant health care provider shall not be liable for the payment of damages unless the trier of fact finds by the greater weight of the evidence that the health care provider's deviation from the standard of care required under subsection (a) of this section constituted gross negligence, wanton conduct, or intentional wrongdoing. Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to change, alter, override, or otherwise affect the provisions of G.S. 90-21.14, 90-21.15, 90-21.16, or 20-166."
42 U.S.C. § 1395dd is EMTALA , the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act, and it says:(b) Necessary stabilizing treatment for emergency medical conditions and labor (1) In general If any individual (whether or not eligible for benefits under this subchapter) comes to a hospital and the hospital determines that the individual has an emergency medical condition, the hospital must provide either—
(e) Definitions In this section: (1) The term “emergency medical condition” means—
It certainly looks like the lobbyists for the medical community knew exactly what they were doing when they crafted this portion of the proposed law. The EMTALA definition is a little bit "loosey goosey" (mostly because it was intended as a way to be broad and make sure hospitals did not "dump" people who were uninsured in the middle of giving birth).
Because of this broad definition of emergency, and because our statute integrates that definition, most people undergoing any serious treatment in a hospital: delivering a baby, having a heart attack, bleeding profusely, etc, will be defined by EMTALA as being "in an Emergency" and thus, ANYONE treating them will have IMMUNITY.
I think the legal inquiry will be:
"When the alleged negligence took place, could the patient have been transferred to another facility pursuant to EMTALA?" If yes---> no immunity If no ----> Emergency under EMTALA = Immunity
Do you want just about every Obstetrician to have immunity if they make an error?
Also, because this "definitional slight of hand" is not as obvious as saying "doctors delivering babies have immunity" will the Medical Malpractice Insurance Companies use this "gray area" to say "Well, the Legislature didn't give you outright immunity, so we can't lower the insurance rates of OBGYNs because we don't actually know if the immunity applies. We'd have to look at it on a case by case basis."?
Bingo! The doctors will raise an "EMTALA Immunity Defense" in EVERY case, creating a cottage industry for Insurance Defense Lawyers to bill hundreds of thousands of dollars, the Medical Malpractice Carriers will continue to charge too much money to the Doctors while enjoying the "Immunity Defense" that will probably kill most claims, and the babies who are born maimed or injured or die- well, they will have no right to a jury trial.
Please contact a member of the Committee and voice your opinion on HB 542. Say no to IMMUNITY!
NC House Select Commitee on Tort Reform Contact Information
Posted by Chris Nichols on March 31, 2011 at 09:37 AM in Insurance Law , NC Law Changes, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
EMTALA, H 542, HB 542, House Bill 542, immunity, Jr., medical malpractice, NC general Assembly, OBGYN, personal injury raleigh, Representative Daniel F. McComas, Representative Johnathan Rhyne, Tort reform
Dietary supplements Prescription and over-the-counter pharmaceutical Drugs Vaccines Biopharmaceuticals
Cosmetics Sanitation requirements on interstate travel Control of disease on products Sperm donation for assisted reproduction
Egg products National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Regulated Products Vehicle safety
Steering components Fuel system components
Engine cooling fan blades that break Windshield wiper assemblies that fail Seats and/or seat backs that fail Critical vehicle components that break
Car ramps or jacks that may collapse Air bags that deploy incorrectly
One of the reasons Michigan passed the law in 1995 was to attempt to keep Merck and Pfizer as empoloyers in the state. Michigan passed the law and Merck left anyhow. also In 2007, Pfizer announced plans to completely close the Ann Arbor, Nagoya and Amboise Research facilities by the end of 2008, eliminating 2,160 jobs and idling the $300-million dollar Michigan facility. Can North Carolina afford to give a pass on the safety of all of these items?
These questions need to be asked: WHY DOES THE LEGISLATURE WANT TO MAKE NC THE DUMPING GROUND FOR DANGEROUS AND DEFECTIVE PRODUCTS, WITHOUT CREATING A SINGLE JOB? WHY WOULD THE LEGISLATURE LEGALIZE THE SALE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS? HOW DID NC GET THIS PROPOSED LAW?
How did this "law" get to North Carolina? It got here from ALEC, the "American Legislative Exchange Counsel" a libertarian and conservative think tank funded by big industry with their goal of protecting corporate interests from any safety regulation. Who funds ALEC? If you go to the link you will find a long list of manufacturers, drug makers, industrial polluters, and other "mega corporations".
Posted by Chris Nichols on March 30, 2011 at 01:17 PM in Current Affairs, Food and Drink, Insurance Law , NC Law Changes, News and Law for Non-lawyers, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
children, death, defective products, defective toys, FDA, immunity, injury, Jr., Jr., law, maim, NC House Select Committee on Tort Reform, North Carolina, pharmaceutical, Representative Daniel F. McComas, Representative David R. Lewis, Representative James W. Crawford, Representative Johnathan Rhyne, SB33, tort reform, Vioxx
OK folks, hold on to your hats (does anyone wear hats these days?) it is time for a trip down an Orwellian rabbit hole (to mix some metaphors) into political intrigue, lawyers, lobbyists, and a organization posing as "we, the people." No, it's not a national political party, its a North Carolina effort to take away the Constitutional right of trial by jury if you, or someone you love, is maimed or killed by a simple, preventable, mistake.
As these things go, we lawyers know that the best way to get to the bottom of things is to "follow the money" and that's what this post is all about.
And of course, what I'm talking about is the very recent creation of a "grass roots" effort to change the the laws of medical malpractice in North Carolina. That "grass roots" organization stealthily sprung to life on March 10, 2011, as a non-profit organization called "North Carolinians for Affordable Health Care, Inc."
What follows is the story of the "birth of an astro-turf" organization. And if you are not familiar with that term, let me give you my definition. We've all heard of "grass roots" organizations, right? They start out with regular people who have a concern about something. Those people organize and get the word out and suddenly they create a movement which gains momentum. And when that movement gets big enough, these regular people get a "voice" on the public stage with the politicians and large corporations that can simply "buy" access to government with lobbyists. Well, "astro-turf" is the opposite of that. An "astro-turf" organization is something created by a corporation or a lobbyist to appear to be "of the people" when it is, in fact, just a shill by "the man"- some corporate interest that wants to pose as "the people."
As you read this rather lengthy post, you'll get to see how a small group of politically connected lawyers created an "astro-turf" organization to persuade politicians and the public to take away the rights or regular people to bring a claim against an insurance company and hospital when that hospital makes a mistake that injures, maims, or kills someone they love.
3/10/2011 Articles of incorporation for North Carolinians for Affordable Health Care (NCFAHC) is filed.
It is, of course, a Section 501(c)(4) Corporation. The name and address of the incorporator is R. Donavon Munford, Jr., P. O. Box 2611, Raleigh, NC 27602-2611.
Reference: NC Secretary of State Filings
North Carolinians for Affordable Health Care is incorporated by a Republican former member of the NC General Assembly who is a partner in the Smith Anderson Law Firm
R. Donovan "Don" Munford was a Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly representing the state's thirty-fourth House district, including constituents in Wake County from 2002. Munford is a lawyer and accountant from Raleigh, North Carolina.
Munford ran for re-election to the North Carolina House of Representatives in the 2004 General Assembly election. He defeated J.H. Ross in the Republican primary, but lost to Democrat Grier Martin in the November 2004 general election.
He is a partner at Smith Anderson, the largest law firm in the Raleigh area. He practices in the areas of corporate and business law, estate planning and asset protection planning. Munford is also a licensed Certified Public Accountant. (Reference: Munford Wikipedia Entry)
Smith Anderson Law Firm is a leading Medical Malpractice Insurance Defense law firm and also a government lobbying law firm.
Smith Anderson Law Firm registered the website for NCFAHC.
Reference: WhoIS Registration link
Smith Anderson Law Firm has a longstanding relationship with the North Carolina Medical Society and lobbies for them before the General Assembly.
The North Carolina Medical Society is lobbying for immunity from negligence for Emergency Rooms in NC.
3/16/2011 NCFAHC releases a commercial falsely alleging that North Carolina is experiencing "frivolous lawsuits" which increase taxes and insurance costs.
Are "North Carolinians" demanding immunity for negligent Emergency Rooms and physicians, or is a small group of lawyers, lobbyists, and physicians looking to walk away from their responsibility to the injured, maimed, and killed?
Can anyone explain how making Emergency Rooms immune from claims or lawsuits for "negligence" furthers the Medical Society's stated purpose to"raise the standards for their profession" and "protect the quality of patient care?"
North Carolina Senate Bill 33 (SB33) does exactly the opposite. SB 33 changes the rules for any medical person in the Emergency Room and eliminates responsibility for "negligence". This does not "raise the standard" for the profession, but in fact drastically lowers the standard. So how does this "protect the quality of patient care?" Well, what happens when you say "you can no longer be held financially accountable for the consequences of sloppy work, negligent work, or breaking and ignoring the established rules in all other Emergency Rooms in the state of North Carolina?"
Does taking accountability away from Doctors, Nurses and Hospitals somehow make people more responsible? Or does it make them act "less responsible?"
How about this? What would happen if we eliminated all speed limits in North Carolina, and just told people not to drive "grossly fast"? Would our roads be safer, or less safe?
Bottom line, the NC Medical Society, through their lawyers and lobbyists are "posing" as you, the people, in an effort to take away your right to hold a small group of bad doctors accountable.
And of course, where do the ACTUAL people stand on this issue?
Please write your elected House member a note and tell them to oppose this Bill.
Here is how to look them up: Who Represents Me?
(Scroll down to the bottom and look up by your Zip code)
Posted by Chris Nichols on March 17, 2011 at 09:57 AM in NC Law Changes, News and Law for Non-lawyers, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
Contributory Negligence in NC: why comparative won't raise insurance rates
NC Lawyers' Weekly has provided a great link to an article that was run in the Winston-Salem Journal about contributory negligence laws in North Carolina. Contrubutory Negligence is an issue that people don't know or care about, until they face the problem themselves. Basically, in NC, even if you are hurt by someone else's negligence, if the other person can prove you are just a little bit to blame for your injury, you are barred from any recovery. That's right. Someone else is 99.9% to blame, and you are barred from recovery.
Columnist Scott Sexton has written a series of excellent articles on the subject and really puts a human face on this convoluted and political issue. I highly recommend reading these articles.
I'll also add this to the mix. One of the problems with contributory negligence is that it is so often a bar to people seeking legal representation. Lawyers who represent injured people know that they could spend years working on case and lose everything at trial simply because a jury felt the Plaintiff may have played some very small part in causing the accident.
Here are some the the previous articles by Sexton:
Contibutory Negligence: it's "an insurance company's dream "
"Never mind that Joshua was 7 years old and was within 3 feet of the curb, or that Logan was drunk and driving on the wrong side of the road. "By way of affirmative defense, Defendant Logan pleads the contributory negligence of the decedent Plaintiff Joshua Franklin Palomares-Beckles," wrote Rodney Guthrie, Logan's attorney. If a jury in North Carolina decides that you are even a tiny bit at fault in this sort of case, you are entitled to nothing under state law, under a concept called contributory negligence. "In general, I'd say contributory negligence is an insurance company's dream," said Walter Holton Jr., the attorney who filed the lawsuit on behalf of Beckles-Palomares. "
Wreck victim faces being victimized by outdated law "After an automobile accident in New Hanover County involving his daughter, Ashley, a student at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Norris has become something of an expert on a legal concept known as "contributory negligence," an outdated and completely unfair area of insurance law used only here and in three other states. That leaves option C. "Our insurance company is also using the contributory-negligence law claim that Ashley is limited in what we can recover," Norris said.
'There is no lobby for the little people' in this state "Just four states - North Carolina, Virginia, Alabama and Maryland - still hang on to the concept of contributory negligence, a relic from English Common Law. "
Don't believe hype that law would increase insurance rates
On its face, insurance law - specifically a legal concept called “contributory negligence” - is something that only a serious policy nerd could love.
That is, unless (or until) you or someone you know gets hosed by that law. Then it’s not so boring.
Contributory negligence works like this: If you’re in an accident and deemed to be just 1 percent at fault, you’re not legally entitled to one red cent to cover your damages from the idiot (or his or her insurance company) who was 99 percent to blame.
Three recent columns explored some of the more outrageous abuses of this law. Possibly the worst was the insurance-company attorney who argued that a 27-year-old man killed by a hit-and-run driver in October 2003 while changing a flat tire in Orange County was partly responsible for his own death.
It’s a shameless, outdated blame-the-victim strategy. It also seems like an easy law to change.
Yet objections remain. The state, for example, could switch to a “comparative-negligence” system. If you’re 90 percent at fault, you (or your insurance company) pay 90 percent of the damages.
Every Feb. 1, the N.C. Rate Bureau - an umbrella organization representing insurance companies - files a rate request. The bureau then makes a rate recommendation. Actuaries and attorneys with the Department of Insurance negotiate any changes with the rate bureau. If there’s no agreement, then Long decides.
“It’s a pretty long and pretty dull process unless you are an actuary,” said Chrissy Pearson, a spokeswoman for the Department of Insurance.
Given that background, I figured that Long’s thoughts on the merits of contributory negligence versus comparative merits would be worth hearing.
You can read the rest of the article by going to the Winston-Salem Journal.
Posted by Chris Nichols on March 04, 2008 at 11:25 AM in Insurance Law , NC Law Changes, News and Law for Non-lawyers, Personal Injury Law, Tort Reform, Wrongful Death | Permalink
attorney, comparative, contributory negligence, injury, insurance, law, NC personal injury, negligence, Sexton, Winston-Salem Journal, wrongful death
State Employee Health Lien: no cap under Wrongful Death Statute
When the changes to the State Employee Health Plan lien were enacted on October 1, 2006, the Legislature specifically exempted the SEHP from the $4,500 cap that is normally placed on medical providers collecting from wrongful death settlements.
Specifically, the Wrongful death Act (N.C.G.S.
§ 28A-18-2(a) ) was amended to say:The limitations on recovery for hospital and medical
expenses under this subsection do not apply to subrogation rights exercised
pursuant to G.S. 135-40.13A. This subsection becomes effective for deaths occuring on or after October 1, 2006. The Plan is still limted to recovering no more than 50% of the net settlement after "reasonable collection costs" are subtracted from the total settlement. "Reasonable" is presumed to be 33.3% by SEHP.
Chris Nicholshttp://www.NicholsTrialLaw.com
Posted by Chris Nichols on December 20, 2006 at 06:02 AM in NC State Employees Health Plan Lien, Wrongful Death | Permalink
LAW, LIENS, NC, SEHP
The North Carolina Court of Appeals has ruled today that a plaintiff is not entitled to recover punitive damages from an Estate of a tortfeasor. In the matter of Harrell v. Estate of Perry, the COA addressed an appeal from a Superior Court where the Superior Court had ruled that pursuant to NC Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)6, the Plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which releif can be granted under some legal theory. The gist of the opinion is that punitive damages are awarded to punish the wrongdoer, and the death of the wrong doer precludes his being punished by the assessment of punitive damages.
Drunk Defendant Dies After Injuring PlaintiffThe opinion of the COA is light on facts, but does cite that the Plaintiff alleges he was injured in a motor vehicle collision caused by an intoxicated defendant.
The Plaintiff brought a case for compensatory and punitive damages and the defendant moved to dismiss under 12(b)6.
Levinson: You Can't Deter the Dead with PunitivesJudge Levinson, writing for the panel, cited a 1982 decision that held that punitive damages were not appropriate against a deceased defendant. The issue in this case was whether the 1996 amendment to the punitive damages statute, N.C. Gen Stat. § 1D-1, expanded the scope of punitive damages in the section that states that punitive damages may be awarded:“to punish a defendant for egregiously wrongful acts and to
deter the defendant and others from committing similar wrongful
acts.” And, But or Or Won't Get You Very FarWhile the Plaintiff argued the obvious policy reasons behind the statute, that punitives should be awarded against an estate to discourage similar bad behavior of people that are living, the COA dodged that policy discussion through statutory interpretation.
Judge Levinson wrote: It is a common rule of statutory
construction that “when the conjunctive 'and' connects words,
phrases or clauses of a statutory sentence, they are to beconsidered jointly.” Lithium Corp v. Bessemer City, 261 N.C. 532,
535, 135 S.E.2d 574, 577 (1964). Thus, an individual is subject to
punitive damages where he or she may be punished for the
egregiously wrongful act and be deterred from committing such an
act in the future. In the instant case, defendant died sometime before plaintiff
filed the subject complaint. Because defendant is deceased,
deterring him from committing a similar wrongful act in the future
is, of course, not possible. Consequently, the statutory mandate
of G.S. § 1D-1, providing that the appropriateness of punitive
damages is contingent upon punishing and deterring defendant from
engaging in similar conduct in the future, cannot be achieved. So there you have it. The "and" means that if punitives deter someone else, that's great, but that alone will not allow punitive damages to be granted. You need a live tortfeasor to punish first.
I don't particularly agree with this interpretation. To me, the "plain meaning" of the statute is that it is meant to deter other acts like this, whether they be from the defendant or from other similarly situated defendants.
-Chris Nicholswww.NicholsTrialLaw.com Posted by Chris Nichols on October 18, 2006 at 02:07 PM in NC Law Changes, News and Law for Non-lawyers, Personal Injury Law, Wrongful Death | Permalink
damages, DUI, law, NC, north carolina, punitive