|
The halls of state government often have been clogged during the past few weeks with white-coated doctors and nattily dressed plaintiff's lawyers. They have crowded shoulder-to-shoulder at the leatherette ropelines that separate lobbyists from lawmakers outside the House and Senate chambers. While they and their supporters battled over a proposal to cap pain and suffering awards in malpractice suits, business lobbyists have seen their own wish-list of civil liability reforms sail through almost unquestioned. … Under Senate Bill 3, a plaintiff who won a jury award of less than 75 percent of the judgment offer would pay the defendants' legal costs. If the award wound up being 125 percent, the defendant who offered the judgment payment would pick up the plaintiff's legal tab. In effect, it would mean many injured parties would avoid going to court, because they couldn't afford the risk of paying a defendant's lawyers, said Andrea Curcio, a Georgia State University law professor. "It allows (wealthy defendants) to make low-ball offers," she said. "The thought of having to pay insurance lawyers at their $200- to $400-per-hour rate is very scary." Many plaintiffs, she said, are represented on contingency and are expecting to pay their lawyers from their award or settlement. Under the proposed law, a plaintiff who went forward with a valid case, but had a witness die before trial, could wind up winning a smaller award than a judgment offer, and have their entire award go to the defendants' attorneys.
For a copy of the complete article, contact CJRG. |