After a good ride on a hot day with miles to go before days end, it is tempting to have something more, something good, something more than ice tea or a Coke. "It's Miller time!" urges us, along with "go for the gusto!" (if you remember that advertising slogan) or "just one won't hurt," to go ahead and order that beer. We know better. We've heard it in motorcycle safety classes. We've read it in motorcycle magazines. But instead of listening to Jiminy Cricket on our shoulder telling us "don't be a fool, stick with the ice tea," we're thinking - "It'll relax me for the ride home. I've only got a few more miles to ride. One beer won't make a difference. Everybody else is having one. That is going to taste great! I know my limits, I'll adjust my riding accordingly."
In addition to those rationalizations, there's also -- "I'll have an energy drink!! That'll get me home safe!!" We see their advertisements at motorcycle races. Monster Energy Drinks like M-80 and Heavy Metal. Red Bull. Rockstar. Full Throttle. The mental association they are pushing is that motorcycling and energy drinks go together. "So motorcycling plus an energy drink plus a beer (or maybe two or three thanks to the energy drink) and I'll be good to go!" Not so fast, cowboy.
Those energy drinks don't offset the effects of alcohol on perception time, reaction time, and judgment. They may have anywhere from 80 to 160 mg of caffeine or more, as much as 240 mg in some cases. A 12 oz. Coke has 35 mg of caffeine. All that caffeine can offset the drowsiness caused by alcohol but drowsiness is not the only effect on the brain and its ability to get you and your motorcycle home safely. We use the sense of drowsiness caused by alcohol to assess our level of impairment. When massive doses of caffeine take that drowsiness away, our ability to assess our level of impairment is reduced and we are likely to underestimate the extent to which one or more drinks have affected our ability to ride safely.
When we mix energy drinks and alcohol, we tend to drink more. When you take decreased perception and reaction time, and mix that with impaired judgment and the likely effect of massive caffeine on what the right wrist wants to do with the throttle, that ride home could go bad in ways our mothers, fathers, and loved ones don't want to know.
People who mix energy drinks are more likely to drive after drinking. They are more likely to underestimate their level of intoxication and mental impairment. And they are more likely to overestimate their ability to drive home safely.
When the day's ride is not yet over, you're sitting at a table, relaxed, and are tempted by a tall cold one, take a pass. Hold off on the beer until you're home safe, wherever "home" happens to be that night. Live to ride another day.
]]>Charlottesville Albemarle Bar Association Celebrates Law Day
The local bar association is celebrating Law Day by hosting a free seminar on issues relating to aging. Senior Law Day is scheduled for Tuesday, May 4, 2010, 9:30 to 1:30, at Charlottesville City Hall, in council chambers. Lunch will be provided, and all attendees will receive the 2009 Senior Citizens Handbook, which includes valuable information on a variety of topics, such as housing, finances, taxes, health care, legal rights and planning for the future. Visit http://www.cabaonline.org/ for more information on Senior Law Day.
We hope this seminar will give attendees some useful information to help them keep up with changing laws.
Law Day is typically celebrated in the United States on May 1. Legal organizations throughout the country hold special educational events to showcase Law Day.
How did it get started?
In 1958, President Dwight D. Eisenhower proclaimed May 1 would be known as Law Day. It was previously known as May Day or International Workers' Day. The observance of Law Day was actually codified into law by Public Law 87-20 on April 7, 1961. He stated "In a very real sense, the world no longer has a choice between force and law. If civilization is to survive it must choose the rule of law."
]]>Ask Legislators to Violate Their Oath of Office
TRIAL BY JURY in suits at common law is a right that "shall be preserved" according to Article VII of the Constitution of the United States. The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia states that "in suits between man and man, trial by jury is preferable to any other, and ought to be held sacred." Article VIII, Section 11.
In taking their oath of office, the President of the United States, U.S. Senators and Congressman, and the Governor, officers and legislators in the Commonwealth of Virginia swear or affirm to defend the Constitution of the United States.
Men should be good neighbors to each other but the Constitution recognizes that when they are not, the right to trial by jury shall be preserved as the way to achieve a just resolution of their disputes. The oaths taken by our leaders as a prerequisite to holding office are oaths to uphold the Constitution and, thereby, uphold the right to trial by jury. This recognizes that the touchstone of law and power in the United States is the Constitution. Not the flag. Not the Oval Office. Not the Capitol. Not Wall Street.
Businesses should be good neighbors too, but while the rule "do unto others" may guide the conduct of individuals, the rule "maximize the bottom line" more often guides the conduct of businesses. Financial fraud, price fixing, price gouging, cutting corners, dumping toxic waste, making motor vehicles that attract buyers but catch fire on their own or easily roll over, and selling drugs, toys and other products that poison, maim and kill - all these add to the bottom line - as long as lawsuits don't get in the way. "Tort reform" is all about protecting that bottom line and doing away with lawsuits. It has nothing to do with making motor vehicles and other products safer, drugs safer, patients safer. Trial by jury is the remedy under the Constitution for holding wrongdoers accountable for not being good neighbors.
When the U. S. Chamber of Commerce, its Institute for Legal Reform, and corporations, interest groups, lobbyists and politicians talk about the need for "tort reform," they are asking legislators to chip away at our Constitutional right to trial by jury to hold corporations accountable.
If we saw these companies and industries on the playground when we were kids, we'd say they were bullies, wanting to push people around without having to answer to anyone.
Tort Reform is a one way street. Its goal is the elimination of the checks and balances on corporate power that trial by jury preserves by putting power into the hands of the people of the United States.
Legislators putting caps on the amount of damages that juries can award for medical malpractice claims, punitive damages, pain and suffering; creating rules that make it harder for people to prove their cases and get their cases before a jury; legislatures granting privileges and immunities from liability of one kind and another; allowing defendants to force plaintiffs to arbitrate a claim instead of going before a jury - the tools for taking away the right to trial by jury are many and devious. At times you need a Sherlock Holmes to sift through all the cries of alarm, the justifications and the deceptions to see that what they are really doing is taking a bit here, a bit there, until they have stolen from us this golden tool entrusted to us by our Founding Fathers for preserving a just society for generations of Americans yet to come. Our elected representatives have taken an oath to defend the Constitution. When it comes to tort reforms that undermine trial by jury, they should just say no.
___________________________
Presidential Oath - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the Unites States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve and defend the Constitution of the Unites States."
U. S. Senate and Congress - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the Unites States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God."
Commonwealth of Virginia - "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the Unites States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ (office) according to the best of my ability (so help me God)." Virginia Constitution, Article II, Section 7.
]]>
For a free repair kit, contact Graco at 1-800-345-4109 or online at Graco.Baby.com.
Based in Atlanta, Graco has received 464 reports of screws loosening or falling out and brackets cracking, resulting in unexpected tip overs of the high chairs.
For additional information, go to http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10171.html.
]]>* Wal-Mart Recalls Charm Key Chains Due to Risk of Lead Exposure. 4/18/08. 12,000 units involved in this recall.
* Wal-Mart Recalls Additional Charm Key Chains Due to Risk of Lead Exposure. 6/19/08. About 39,000 units involved in this recall, in addition to 12,000 previously recalled.
* Horse Toy Figures Recalled by Blip Toys Due to Violation of Lead Paint Standard. 1/26/10. About 15,000 units. Sold at Wal-Mart from 1/2009 through 7/09.
* Children's Toy Jewelry Sets Recalled by Playmates Toys; Charms Violate the Total Lead Standard. 2/2/10. About 252,000 Tiny Tink and Friends Children's Toy Jewelry Sets. Sold at various retailers 11/08 through 11/09.
* FAF Inc. Recalls Children's Necklaces Sold Exclusively at Walmart Stores Due to High Levels of Cadmium. 1/29/10. About 55,000 units involved in this recall.
* CPSC Issues Warning on Children's Winter and Holiday-Themed Charm Bracelets with High Levels of Cadmium. 3/11/10. Rudolph-the-Red-Nosed-Reindeer charm bracelets sold at discount and dollar-type stores 2006 to March 2009. Number of units involved unknown as importer of these goods from China has gone out of business.
Why does it take the CPSC and state attorneys general to discover that products being sold for children contain toxic materials at unsafe levels? When Wal-Mart and other chain stores consider selling a product for children, do they not test the product to see if it contains toxic chemicals or toxic materials at unsafe levels? Where is the headline about how these products got on the store shelves in the first place? Who looked at these products to see if they were safe or toxic? Or did the retailers who offered these items to us to buy for our children, did they just look the other way?
The effects of lead on children are well known. It causes anemia, muscle weakness, brain damage and learning difficulties; it can also affect mental and physical growth. www.atsdr.cdc.gov./tfacts13.html
The effects of cadmium are lung damage, fragile bones, and possible kidney damage. Cadmium is a human carcinogen. It is used in batteries, pigments, metal coatings, and plastics. www.atsdr.cdc.gov./tfacts5.html
Mothers and fathers with young children don't have the time, energy, or resources to test every item they buy for their children. Anyone with young children knows there is not enough time in the day for everything, and sometimes it is hard to even read all the warnings on children's items. Large retailers know this. If a parent goes to a store and finds a toy on the shelf, she thinks it is safe if there is no warning on the packaging. When the warning comes months and months later in a headline or a CPSC recall announcement, it begs the question - who is minding the store?
]]>All consumers should check their credit report annually for accuracy. When doing so, keep these common problems in mind. If you find a violation and are not satisfied, please contact me.
1. Carefully review all of your personal information. If your name is misspelled, your credit report lists incorrect addresses or a wrong social security number for you, or someone else's name, these are FCRA violations and should should be addressed.
2. Find the full name and contact information of any company listing tradelines on your credit report. If it hasn't given its full company name and correct contact information, this is a FCRA violation and the tradeline should be corrected or removed altogether.
3. Lingering Tradelines. Look at the date of last activity (DOLA) for each tradeline. Any negative tradelines older than 7 years or positive tradelines older than 10 years have to be removed. If they are not, this is a FCRA violation.
4. Reaged Accounts. Reaged Accounts are tradelines with incorrect dates of last activity, that allow the tradeline to be included on a credit report for a longer period of time than the legal 7 or 10 years mentioned above. Companies that do this may be guilty of willful FCRA violations.
5. Medical debt. Tradelines may not list the name of the health care institution where care was received. If an institution where medical care was provided is listed, it violates recent changes to the Act and the tradeline must be removed.
6. Debts that were not validated. If you mailed a debt validation letter but did not receive a response validating the debt after 30 days, and the tradeline remains on your credit report, a violation of the FCRA has been committed.
]]>Pole dancing as a form of entertainment is often made the butt of a joke. Yet, it's being taught in fitness centers around the country as a serious form of exercise. A New York City newspaper recently carried a story about a woman who filed a lawsuit against Crunch Fitness in New York for an injury she suffered in a pole dancing class. It's the kind of story that makes you think, "Pole dancing is risky business, what did she expect?" The method of injury seems so strange it becomes difficult to take the idea of a lawsuit seriously.
But maybe that is the point.
The tort "reform" movement in this country takes many forms. There is the obvious lobbying in Congress and in state legislatures every year to put limits on the types of injuries for which people can recover - capping pain and suffering awards or limiting recoveries in medical malpractice cases. In addition, there are efforts to limit our rights to sue drug manufacturers for failing to warn about the dangerous side effects of their drugs. There are also efforts to create more opportunities for defendants to delay lawsuits and challenge claims, making it harder and more expensive for an injured person to get his or her case heard by a jury.
But there is another side to tort reform and that is the business of reporting lawsuits that can be portrayed and misinterpreted as being funny or frivolous, even though the claims may be valid.
It all comes down to how you tell the story.
Take the McDonald's case. The story is usually told as if the woman should have known she would be badly burned if she spilled coffee in her lap. The subtext of most stories about that case was, "Duh, what did she expect?" What nearly all stories (except the excellent Wall Street Journal article) failed to say was that McDonald's was serving coffee in-stores and at its drive-in windows at nearly scalding hot temperatures - far hotter than most other restaurants and far hotter than you would serve it at home. In addition, McDonald's coffee had been spilling in laps and burning people for years. McDonald's knew about these cases and had been sued repeatedly, yet still served its coffee, not hot, but scalding hot. The second or third degree burn that results from having that coffee fill your lap for 2 to 3 seconds does not make for a Hap Hap Happy Place.
When the media tell stories in a humorous or derisive way, the tendency is for people to look down their noses at the justice system and at the lawyers who bring personal injury cases. It makes people think the system is broken and needs to be fixed. The "fix" that is readily offered by corporations and their lobbyists is tort "reform."
Tort "reform" is not just about shaping the laws; it's also about shaping the way people think about personal injury law, tort/personal injury lawyers and injured people. It's about stigmatizing injured plaintiffs and their lawyers. It's about prejudicing the people who are going to sit on juries in personal injury cases and turning those people into jurors who will be biased against injured people and the lawyers who represent them. Ultimately it's about stripping people of their right to hold corporate wrongdoers and their agents responsible. Who benefits from that?
The tort "reform" movement isn't about creating a more fair justice system. It's about creating a justice system that is more favorable to the corporations and industries that pay for lobbyists and legislators to twist the law in their favor.
Phrases like "frivolous lawsuits," "the McDonald's case" and "personal responsibility" are used by lobbyists, TV personalities and others to trigger the accumulated reactions their audience members have had from consuming biased and misleading stories. These terms become the rallying cries for tort reform in our legislatures.
So when you see a news story about a woman suing a fitness club for injuries suffered during a pole dancing class, does the injury or lawsuit seem funny or frivolous or make you wonder, "What was she thinking?" Is the news story controlling or twisting the way you think about the case? What additional facts would you need to see the story in favor of the injured person?
The Crunch Fitness website says: "The dancer's pole isn't just for professionals anymore. This challenging and sexy class combines intense upper body and core strength, coordination and balance..." In some stories, the woman in question was said to be a ballroom and tap dancer taking a free class. There are reports she was prodded by the instructor, in her first class, to get into an upside down position on the pole. When she was upside down, hanging by her legs, and asked the instructor for help, the instructor walked away. She lost her grip, fell and injured her shoulders. She was out of work for six months.
When you are a student new to an activity, you naturally look to your instructor for guidance and assistance. If he gets you into a dangerous position, then abandons you when you ask for help, is that fair treatment? Or is it his duty to help you get out of the danger he got you into?
News stories have a point of view. Whether a story about a lawsuit aims to entertain or to shape the way you think about a subject or an entire issue, it is slanted. If the feeling or reaction you get leaves you thinking something is wrong with the justice system, do you feel well informed, or like the facts have been twisted?
]]>
Kevin Ryan wrote the following ode in response to a Dec. 30, 2009, story from the www.avvo.com, website:
Falling Moose Head Leads to Concussion, Lawsuit
Wednesday, December 30, 2009 at 02:23 PM
A restaurant patron is suing an establishment on New York City's Lower East Side where she claims she was clobbered by a fallen stuffed moose head. In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Supreme Court, internet design consultant Raina Kumra alleges that while she was dining and drinking at the White Slab Palace late one night in October, a giant moose head become dislodged from the wall and struck her on the head, the Associated Press reports.
Lawsuit for a Fallen Moose Head
by Kevin Ryan
A woman who went partying comes now to file a suit,
Alleging she was injured when clobbered by a moose.
She wasn't o'er in Sweden, or even in Alaska,
She wasn't up in Maine, Minnesota or Mount Shasta.
Was on the Lower East Side, down on Delancey Street,
She didn't see it coming 'til the beast was at her feet.
Looking down with hurting head, she thought she saw a moose,
The floored head looking up at her, had somehow gotten loose.
Doctor visits followed and a lawyer visit too,
And so this claim against the moose head's owner has ensued.
The suit proclaims a duty to be free from falling mooses,
and other falling objects however they come looses.
The conk came in a back room as the clock struck 1 a.m.
A party there was going on, the moose head tame 'til then.
NYU grads packed the room, crowding through the door
at the White Slab Palace with its trophy room decor.
A witness said balloons were tied to the moose's antlers,
Then a partygoer pulled and the moose head answered.
The moose head mounted on the wall crashed down upon the floor,
The woman held her head and rubbed, complaining it was sore.
A witness took some photos to show what had befallen,
but did he snap the tugged balloon that loosed the moose's noggin?
So far it seems that mum's the word, among the party goers,
and so the lawsuit points its finger at the moose head's owner.
Will the judge identify who fixed balloons to moose?
Will he find, it's no Bullwinkle, but clearly caribou?
Will he say that one who ties balloons should know the score?
And know that college party-ers will tug on such decor?
Will he say that moose heads and balloons and drink don't mix?
That one who sets a stage like this must pay for drunken tricks?
Will he find it tortious to grace antlers with balloons,
and hold this alone would turn grad students into baboons?
The lawsuit of the falling moose complains of a concussion,
Another party incident for comical discussion.
Surely a case like this is no more than a joke?
A frivolous concoction after one too many tokes?
But when the laughter's over a fact is still a fact,
a loaded gun left about may be a tortious act.
Sword or mace, wall dangling, would have been a danger,
to family and friends, and to invited strangers.
Head of moose or caribou with antlers meant for bear,
Would be no laughing matter if not hung with care.
And she who sets a stage with loose props and alcohol,
may have to answer when a loose head topples off the wall.
]]>
As the complexity and sophistication of robotic products increases, so too will increase the cost of proving liability. This cost will effectively close the courthouse doors to many who are injured. Manufacturers, through talking heads on TV, economic experts, pundits and so on are likely to lobby the public, the congress and state legislatures (a) on the need for immunities from suit to "protect jobs" (that probably have been exported to foreign countries) or to protect the "industry" so we don't fall behind other countries in robot production; or (b) they will seek the creation of additional procedural hurdles in the court systems and legal process to make it impossible for an injured person to hold a corporate manufacturer responsible before a jury.
New remedies or procedures will be needed to level the playing field so that economics alone do not dictate who can bring a lawsuit. The time may have come for the cost of proving liability to be included in the damages that are recoverable by an injured party who wins at trial after having made a settlement offer which was less than the jury verdict.
Without some mechanism to offset the cost barrier to holding such manufacturers responsible for the injuries they cause and to encourage them to have adequate levels of insurance coverage, their licenses to manufacture complex and sophisticated robotic devices will become, thanks to the high cost of litigation, licenses to maim and kill. That would be a world like the Empire Luke Skywalker fought against. It will be a world where the court system serves the powerful at the expense of the individual. In the rush to a future where R2Ds and C3POs move among us, let us not forget that it is the individual who is paramount, because when the individual is protected, each and every one of us is protected; but when it is the wealthy and powerful who are protected, then the rest of us live in danger.
In the movie Ghostbusters, the ghostbusters' advertising slogan asked - who you gonna call? As we move forward into a world with increasingly complex products, we need to remember this question and be sure that the justice system keeps the court house doors open to individuals injured by sophisticated and complex products of all kinds.
]]>
In Star Wars when R2D2 and C3PO are sold to Luke Skywalker's uncle, he was looking for droids (thinking robots) to operate his farm equipment. Nobody asked - who made these things and who is at fault if they malfunction and burn down my workshop, destroy my equipment or injure anybody? The Star Wars script did not call for product malfunction and mayhem to create a personal injury law saga. However, Murphy's law is written into the script of real life. If accidents can happen, they will.
We have cars that parallel park themselves. We have Roomba vacuum cleaners that roll around the house on their own, moving from room to room, avoiding stairs, even plugging themselves into their docking station when their battery gets low. We have industrial robots in factories and robots used by the military in Iraq to detect and inspect bombs. The day is coming when robots will be moving around among us, operating not by direct human control but on artificial intelligence and other programs. Like the various products that have come before them, these robot devices will malfunction and injure people. It may be a car that drives itself through a cross-walk filled with pedestrians, or a janitorial robot bumping someone and knocking her down a flight of stairs, or a robot child caretaker that restrains a child and breaks his arm. Product failures and malfunctions are a fact of life that is not going to change.
Today when a machine or appliance causes a fire that burns down a house or kills people sleeping in their home, traditional product liability law determines responsibility for the loss of property or life. In these lawsuits, lawyers hire engineers to identify the malfunction that caused the fire and to determine whether that malfunction was caused by negligent design or negligent manufacture, alteration of the product during repairs or maintenance, abuse of the product, or a failure to warn about the fire hazard and what to do to prevent fires. In a typical defective product case, the cost for experts ranges from $75,000 to several hundreds of thousands of dollars. This litigation price tag alone prevents many legitimate cases from being brought - a form of tort control in and of itself.
Now along comes R2D2, adding artificial intelligence to the list of potential causes of product malfunction. The cost of litigation will be even greater as an additional class of experts will be needed to determine what part the computer software played in the malfunction. They will have to determine if the defect was in the original programming, or was it due to hacking or radio/ELF/microwave or other electrical interference, or to downloading a defective software patch, or downloading an updated version of the original program, or did the addition of a new program cause a conflict with the software in the robot in which the interaction of two non-defective programs caused a glitch that resulted in the injury? Determining the guilt or innocence of these ghosts within the machine will be difficult and expensive.
]]>A Judge Jeffrey Arlen Spinner, of the Supreme Court of New York's Suffolk County gave a Brookhaven, New York consumer whose loan servicer, IndyMac Mortgage Services, had obtained a judgment of foreclosure and sale a holiday reward for trying to work things out with the lender, while giving the lender ashes and switches for its misconduct. The lender had badly delayed participation in a settlement conference required by New York law for sub-prime loans. When a bank officer finally did appear, she was condescending, unwilling to discuss a sale to the borrower's daughter for fair market value, or a reasonable modification. In addition she used inconsistent numbers to describe the debt. The Court considered IndyMac's behavior to be outrageous. Since foreclosure is a special remedy not just a request for money, the Court decided the case under rules that require a party seeking the equitable relief of a foreclosure to come into court with "clean hands"--something the servicing company lacked. In the end, the Judge got so angry that he decided sanctions would not teach IndyMac a lesson and extinguished the borrower's debt altogether. If you want to read a great story about a bank getting a beat-down, see here: http://livinglies.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/indymac-bank-fsb-v-yano-horosky.pdf
]]>
NBC News has reported that credit card companies are experimenting with annual fees for certain card holders to make up for lost revenues. http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/33335064/ns/business-consumer_news/
If your bank indicates an intention to impose a fee for your credit card, raise a fuss, and if you can afford it, consider closing your account to make a point. But not all consumers can or should do that, because as noted in the news story, credit scores can be adversely affected by closing and reopening credit card accounts. Savvy consumers will think twice before closing their accounts, but now is the time to make your point if you so choose. Let the card company know in writing why you're cancelling the card--so there will be no doubt in its corporate mind.
]]>Introduced July 14, 2009 to the House of Representatives, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009, otherwise known as HR 3200 (the lengthy text of which can be seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:H.R.3200) provides many health care coverage improvements for Americans. Some of the provisions are smart and simple improvements of protections for consumers of health care insurance. One might be tempted to us as an example minimum standards for health insurance programs. However, as with all regulatory action, minimum standards must be regulated, and that reduces flexibility and adds costs which ultimately will be borne by consumers either in their premiums or through taxation. A better approach would be to rely on user-friendly, standardized, disclosures that present a menu of benefits, so that consumers could price shop in light of fair disclosures and evaluate what omissions and inclusions may be driving a plan's premium costs. Why not standardize the minimum benefits? An easy answer might focus on elective procedures that involve moral issues. On strictly religious grounds, some consumers may not want their premium payment to cover abortion services. Another example might focus on the age or gender of a consumer: an elderly man might choose not to have coverage for obstetrical or gynecological services, whereas a younger person might choose to omit coverage for geriatric services. The question is, do we want one size fits all policies, or mightn't consumers benefit from accepting certain risks in order to save premiums. Less controversial consumer protections would be requirements that coverage must be provided for a price that is not based on preexisting conditions, increased transparency, disclosures and clear notices.
The similar Senate Bill, Affordable Health Choices Act S. 1679 (seen here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:S1679:) now contains a variety of amendments that have been survived the committee hearing. A good summary of the recent proposed amendments can be see here: http://www.towersperrin.com/tp/showhtml.jsp?url=usa/service-areas/health-care-reform/health-care-reform-pulse.htm#
Criticism of the bill has been mixed, and good points are raised on both sides of the aisle. However, it is clear that America is suffering due to a cost of health care coverage. Both sides of the debate should focus on developing core areas on which we can all agree, and locking improvements into a bill we can all agree on.
]]>Virginia consumers frustrated by arbitration clauses in Federal claims against powerful corporations may get relief soon. Yesterday, the Department of Defense Appropriations bill was amended by a provision to limit forced arbitration in employment contracts with defense contractors. The vote was 68-30, and now moves on to a conference committee for reconciliation with the House version.
The Defense Appropriations bill may seem an odd place for consumers to begin getting relief, but that is a function of the fact that claims against defense contractors are more likely to be large, and the injustice arising from forced pre-injury arbitration more stark. For example, there is the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, who after being drugged, raped, and confined in Iraq tried to pursue a lawsuit against her employer. She was denied due to a forced arbitration clause.
Jamie Leigh Jones is testifying today in support of the bipartisan Arbitration Fairness Act (S. 931 / H.R. 1020). The Act would ensure that the decision to arbitrate is made voluntarily and after a dispute has arisen, so corporations cannot manipulate the system in their favor at the expense of consumers and employees.
Virginia has an Arbitration Act that strongly favors arbitration clauses, even if they are buried in small print in the back of a contract. If you don't think its fair for companies to slip these into their contracts with consumers, let your state Senator or Delegate know you want change.
]]>In a New York Times article last week (seen here:
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2009/09/23/us/politics/politics-us-financial-regulation-cfpa.html?_r=1&scp=7&sq=consumer%20watch%20dog%20agency&st=cse), the recent White House proposal for a consumer financial protection agency is discussed. As with any new agency, it will take some time to become effective. Although it will have a huge influence on the financial sector, and should provide valuable protections, politicians are right in being keen not to reduce the competition, and the ability of consumers to make their own decisions, in the financial sector. ]]>