Latest news with #SenateBill85
Yahoo
16-05-2025
- Automotive
- Yahoo
Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole'
With tort reform in Georgia in the books, the celebration cry among Georgia defense attorneys now might be 'we're number three!' That ranking of the Peach State was jokingly referred to by attorney Blair Cash of the Moseley Marciniak Law Firm, a South Carolina-based practice that focuses much of its work on defending trucking companies. Cash, who is based in Georgia, made the comment in a webinar Friday to review a package of tort reforms approved by the Georgia legislature earlier this year and signed in late April by Gov. Brian Kemp. While Cash was enthusiastic about the Georgia tort reform on the webinar, he was careful not to promise too much out of it. 'I really think it is an attempt to just level the playing field a bit, because as has been talked about, Georgia was the number one judicial hell hold for a couple of years,' he said. 'I think now we've fallen back to number three.' The tort reform is not trucking-specific. Rather, it is an attempt to reform certain practices that have been allowed to develop over the years in the state's courts and which the Georgia trucking bar saw as being risks to the state's motor carriers. The key legislation is known as SB 85, from Senate Bill 85. But SB 85 had a companion piece of legislation that also was approved and signed by Gov. Kemp, SB 86, which seeks to bring transparency to privately-funded lawsuits, where a plaintiff that lacks the resources to pursue litigation takes funding from an outside source that would then get a piece of whatever settlement or award was reached in the case. According to both Cash and several law firms that have posted online commentary, SB 85 has numerous provisions, some of which are more procedural to an outsider looking in–like the discovery process being halted while a defendant's request for a dismissal is pending–and others that can more easily be understood by the side of the legal divide that has people behind the wheel and who would be the target of a lawsuit. The end of the 'seat belt gag rule' is one of those provisions. 'In previous years in Georgia, they've all failed to change the state's draconian seat belt admissibility rule,' Cash said. That draconian rule boiled down to this: 'seat belt usage had been not admissible at all,' he said. Cash cited an actual case where a person sitting on a seated lawn mower riding in the back of a truck–so not belted in–suffered 'horrible' injuries when the truck experienced a tire blowout. The man was left a quadriplegic, Cash said. But his lack of seat belt usage was not admissible in the resulting litigation. He said now being able to introduce the seat belt situation of a person injured in an accident may be permissible under the new law. But Cash added that it is not automatic. It may be preferable, Cash said, not to introduce evidence of seat belt non-usage if the crash in question is a rear end accident resulting in impact 'so insignificant that it doesn't even engage the seat belt.' It can come more into play in crashes where the issue is 'injury causation and what the plaintiffs' injuries would have been had they been wearing their seat belt,' Cash said. The part of SB 86 that Cash said would be 'the most interesting to see' is the rule on so-called phantom damages. As the Kennedys law firm said in an online commentary about SB86, the phantom damages provision of SB 86 'allows defendants to present evidence of the actual amounts paid by health insurers for medical care, limiting reliance on inflated billed amounts. Medical expense recovery is now capped at the reasonable value of necessary care, which may be demonstrated through both billed charges and actual payments, regardless of insurance involvement.' Under the current system that would be changed, the impact of insurance reimbursement against a doctor's charges could not be introduced. But with the shift, Cash said, juries will 'get to hear both numbers now, so they get to hear the big number (offered by plaintiffs) but they still hear the number of what is actually necessary to satisfy those charges,' Cash said. He added that he preferred the term 'truth and damages' rather than 'phantom damages.' One unintended consequence of the law, Cash said, is that it may be preferable from a trial lawyer's perspective if a client has no health insurance. The offsetting impact of insurance payment by definition couldn't come in to play. Cash added that SB 86 is silent on handling that situation. Other parts of SB86 discussed by Cash and by attorneys in their online commentaries include these provisions: The 'anchoring' of non-economic damages: Cash cited where an attorney might make an argument along the lines of 'if LeBron James makes this much money, is the client's suffering worth less than that?' As Kennedys said in its commentary, 'this tactic can introduce arbitrary inflated figures that influence juries and contribute to nuclear verdicts.' Under the new law, if that sort of figure isn't discussed earlier in the testimony, it can't suddenly be introduced during a closing argument. Non-bifurcated trial:The current system could involve three steps, Cash said: the actual trial, apportionment of the damages, and then deciding what the damages should be. Each step could involve the same testimony heard multiple times. Bifurcation, according to the Kennedys law firm, would involve just two phases. But it is not mandated; it is an option that can be requested by either party. The companion legislation, SB87, does not make illegal the practice of outsiders funding lawsuits. The law goes into effect January 1, which Cash said would give those funding entities time to comply with what he said were 'onerous:' registration requirements. 'It has the goal of increasing transparency around third party litigation financing and trying to lift back the veil over some of these agreements which we've known existed for a long time,' Cash said. Some judges in the past would require such disclosure, he added, but it was not unanimous. The registration rules are 'not simply a rubber stamp,' Cash said. 'There are some very serious registration requirements that they have to complete.' More articles by John Kingston California deal with 16 states would end key parts of Advanced Clean Fleets rule New Jersey, feds take opposite paths on independent contractor rules State of Freight takeaways: Freight crash may turn into sudden revival The post Georgia tort reform aims to change practices in judicial 'hell hole' appeared first on FreightWaves.
CBS News
26-04-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Colorado senate's override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the State Capitol
Override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the Colorado State Capitol Override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the Colorado State Capitol Override of a veto by Gov. Jared Polis leads to schism at the Colorado State Capitol For the first time in 14 years, Colorado's state legislature could override a governor's veto. Gov. Jared Polis at the Colorado State Capitol Building in Denver on April 24, 2025. AAron Ontiveroz/The Denver Post via Getty Images Gov. Jared Polis vetoed Senate Bill 85 -- which imposes a host of new regulations on social media companies -- saying the bill is unworkable, erodes privacy and could violate civil rights. The Senate voted 29-6 to override his veto and repass the bill. State Sen. Lindsey Daugherty, one of the bill's sponsors, accused the governor of caving to big tech. "If we fail to act and let this veto stand, we are choosing to represent the business interests of billion-dollar tech companies over the safety of Colorado kids," Daugherty said. The bill requires social media companies to investigate reports of users selling guns or drugs or sexually exploiting kids and remove those users accounts. They also must comply with law enforcement warrants within 72 hours and publish annual reports that include data on how kids are using their platform, how many complaints they received and the violations they confirmed. The governor's office received letters from several groups opposing the measure. His spokesperson says while he supports strengthening law enforcement's ability to crack down on illegal online activity, the bill "fails to guarantee the safety of minors or adults, erodes privacy, freedom, and innovation, hurts vulnerable people, and potentially subjects all Coloradans to stifling and unwarranted scrutiny of our constitutionally protected speech." State Sen. Lisa Frizell, co-sponsor of the bill, suggested opponents were using scare tactics. "We've seen so much dis-information about the bill. It's truly disheartening," Frizell said. It takes two-thirds of both chambers to override a governor's veto. The House delayed a vote until Monday amid heavy pressure from both sides of the issue. Daugherty worried some lawmakers would change their original vote in favor of the bill. "The governor's office is actively lobbying against members vetoing his override. The governor does control what happens the rest of session and people are cognizant of that," Daugherty said. Bill sponsors asked Attorney General Phil Weiser, who is legal counsel for the governor, to weigh in on the bill's constitutionality. He issued a memo saying the state would be likely to win if it were sued, saying the bill applies to illegal activity not protected by the First Amendment, serves the government's interest in protecting public safety and children and allows users the option to appeal their account's removal or use another platform.
Yahoo
01-04-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Senate passes bill targeting abortion medication sent to West Virginia residents
Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, was one of five no votes on a bill prohibiting the sending abortion medication to West Virginia residents, except when the abortion is legal. Tarr said the bill's private cause of action would be a deterrent for companies that might consider operating in West Virginia. (Will Price | West Virginia Legislative Photography) The Senate has signed off on a bill that would target out-of-state health care providers and others who send abortion-causing medication to people in West Virginia, except in the few circumstances when it's legal. The Senate passed Senate Bill 85 with a vote of 28 to 5 and 1 person absent. The bill would make it a felony to prescribe or distribute medications used for abortion to people in West Virginia unless the abortion is legal. In West Virginia, abortion is illegal except for medical emergencies and in cases of rape and incest. Abortion via telehealth is also illegal. Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson, a sponsor of Senate Bill 85, said the 'important legislation is designed to protect life in West Virginia and stop the practice of abortifacients being sent and delivered to West Virginia residents without a lawful prescription.' The penalty for violating the law would be three to 10 years in prison for a person who is not a licensed medical professional. Licensed medical professionals would face the revocation of their license, according to the bill. The Senate on Monday adopted an amendment from Rucker that allows a pregnant woman in West Virginia who receives an abortifacient to sue the sender and requires circuit courts to award injunctive relief and damages of $10,000 for each abortion that results. It clarifies that a person need not be indicted or convicted in order to pursue civil remedies. Sen. Eric Tarr, R-Putnam, was one of five no votes on the legislation. Tarr said private causes of action like what is in the bill dissuade companies from locating in the state. Senators had also adopted Tarr's amendment that allows a public cause of action — the attorney general pursuing civil penalties of $150,000 per offense. 'Had the private cause of action, the job killer in this bill, not been in here, man, I'd have been the biggest champion for this bill,' Tarr said. 'I'd have been all over it. Because we can still come back and do this without making this mistake. Because if you want young families having babies over here in West Virginia, we need jobs, Mr. President.' Rucker said the private cause of action in the bill is not unique to West Virginia's legislation. It's a deterrent for people wishing to ignore state law, she said. 'This legislation does not further expand abortion restrictions,' Rucker said. 'It does not create new law regarding abortion, it is enforcement of the existing law that West Virginia legislators have supported and voted for in the past. So just like we have lots and lots of laws in the books, we expect those laws to be followed. What this legislation does is give a pathway for enforcement.' An attorney for the Senate Judiciary committee told lawmakers that federal courts are likely to decide the issue of criminal penalties for bills like this one. Louisiana last month charged a New York doctor with a felony for allegedly sending abortion pills to a pregnant minor in the state, according to reporting by the Associated Press. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul refused to extradite the doctor to face the charges. New York has a shield law to protect abortion providers who prescribe the medication to patients in states where abortion is outlawed. Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, was another of the five no votes on the bill. Garcia said the legislation chips away at people getting health care in West Virginia. Health care providers testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the state's existing abortion ban makes it difficult for patients to get access to drugs like misoprostal, one of two drugs used in a medication abortion, which is also used to manage hemorrhaging and treating a miscarriage. The bill would make it even more difficult to access the medications, Kelly Lemon, a nurse midwife, testified. 'This is just muddying the waters and making it harder to be a medical professional in the state of West Virginia,' Garcia said. 'And it's another step back. And yeah, there are going to be job losses, not because of trial lawyers, but because of the fact that we're doing something again to just hurt the people of the state of West Virginia.' The bill next goes to the House of Delegates for consideration. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
28-03-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Senate bill targets sending abortion medication to WV, where the procedure is illegal
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday, March 27, 2025, advanced a bill meant to target out of state providers or entities who send medications meant to cause abortion to West Virginia. (Will Price | West Virginia Legislative Photography) A bill advancing in the Senate would make it a felony to prescribe or distribute medications used for abortion to people in West Virginia except for the narrow circumstances when the procedure is legal in the state. The Senate Judiciary Committee referred Senate Bill 85 to the full Senate on Thursday. Senators are expected to vote on the bill next week. With few exceptions, abortion has been illegal in West Virginia since 2022. Abortion by telehealth is also illegal in the state. Sen. Patricia Rucker, R-Jefferson, one of the bill's sponsors, said the intent of Senate Bill 85 is to stop the flow of abortifacients into the state for the purpose of illegal abortions. The bill attempts to enforce the state's abortion ban on out-of-state entities or physicians who would send the medication to West Virginia residents. The penalty for violating the law would be three to 10 years in prison for a person who is not a licensed medical professional. Licensed medical professionals would face the revocation of their license, according to the bill. While the legislation is an attempt to stop out-of-state providers from breaking West Virginia law, federal courts are likely to decide the issue of enforcement, an attorney for the judiciary committee said. Louisiana last month charged a New York doctor with a felony for allegedly sending abortion pills to a pregnant minor in the state, according to reporting by the Associated Press. New York Gov. Kathy Hochul refused to extradite the doctor to face the charges. New York has a shield law to protect abortion providers who prescribe the medication to patients in states where abortion is outlawed. Kelly Lemon, a nurse midwife, testified that some medications labeled as abortifacients have a lot of other uses in health care. Lemon said the state's existing abortion laws have already led to some of her patients not being able to get misoprostol for managing a hemorrhage and delays in care for treating a miscarriage. 'My biggest concern with this bill is that it's going to further create barriers to how we can get these medications to people when they need it,' she said. The bill, should it become law, would cause delays in care and drive health providers out of the state, she said. Rucker responded that the bill indicates that pharmacists filling a valid prescription issued by a licensed medical professional or a physician performing a procedure for a legitimate reason are not breaking the law. Kristin Hawkins, president of Students for Life Action, testified that the bill would close a lot of loopholes for charging physicians and entities that send abortion medication to states where the procedure is not legal. Hawkins said there are websites where people can get abortion pills sent to them, seemingly without a doctor's review. Emily Womeldorff, director of policy and campaigns for Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, said the bill is part of an ongoing effort to create fear and stigma around reproductive health care. 'This bill is a gross overreach of state authority,' Womeldorff said. 'It's threatening enforcement against health care providers that are located outside of the borders of West Virginia, and our government does not have jurisdiction over health care providers that provide care outside of our state borders. Sen. Joey Garcia, D-Marion, was the only lawmaker to speak against the bill, calling it bad policy that would harm a woman's ability to get medical care. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Yahoo
27-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Bill advances to ensure auditor has access to information about child, elder abuse complaints
From left, Auditor Allison Ball, Sen. Stephen Meredith, R-Leitchfield, and Lorran Hart Ferguson, the auditor's chief of staff, address legislative committee, Feb. 27, 2025. (Kentucky Lantern photo by Sarah Ladd) FRANKFORT — A Kentucky bill that is expected to officially close a monthslong dispute between Kentucky's Cabinet for Health and Family Services and Auditor Allison Ball's Office of the Ombudsman is almost law. The House Families and Children Committee approved Senate Bill 85, which clarifies the ombudsman gets 'any software and access rights.' The auditor has fought in court for access to a database the ombudsman needs to investigate complaints about the cabinet. The two offices interpreted the law regarding who had access to the database differently, which led to mediation and a court order allowing read-only access. Lawmakers move to ensure info is available to investigate complaints against state cabinet Several Democrats passed on the vote — Reps. Tina Bojanowski, Rachel Roarx and Sarah Stalker. 'We did reach a resolution temporarily, with the understanding that we would come back before you to make sure the language is abundantly, 100%, no-way-around-it clear that we have access to that database,' Ball said in committee. 'This is cleaning up that problem.' Ball's office assumed oversight of the ombudsman from the cabinet on July 1, thanks to a law enacted in 2023 by the legislature, Senate Bill 48. The ombudsman's job is to investigate and resolve complaints about agencies in the cabinet, including protective services for children and elderly Kentuckians. Those in favor of moving the ombudsman to the auditor and out of the cabinet said it was a conflict of interest for the cabinet to investigate complaints made about themselves. Despite the transfer, Ball's office did not get immediate access to a computer system called iTWIST, which stores information about abuse and neglect cases. The ombudsman can't do his job without access to iTWIST, (the Workers Information System), Ball has said. Ball eventually filed a lawsuit for the access, and the case was mediated and eventually settled in Franklin Circuit Court in late 2024. At that time, Judge Phillip Shepherd also said the legislature and the parties would work during the 2025 session to codify any needed clarification. SB 85 is that clarification. Should the bill pass on the House floor, where it heads next, it can head to Gov. Andy Beshear's desk for a signature or veto. The bill, sponsored by Sen. Stephen Meredith, R-Leitchfield, has an emergency clause, meaning it would take effect immediately upon becoming law.
