Fixing the Broken Civil Court System

Would this be a frivilous Lawsuit? (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090304/ap_on_bi_ge/scotus_drug_suit)

I suppose America has a reputation of being Sue-Happy. Is this so? Is America truly sue-happy? In this thread we will explore that very question. The above link discusses a case that I feel might be argued either way. However, there are many cases--and I am sure we have all seen one or two--which are the very definition of frivilous.

My opinion is many of these frivilous suits are medically related, but so many more examples outside of medical tort can be mentioned.

Questions to guide this discussion are as follows


1. How much responsibility do frivilous lawsuits bear on the current problems with the US Court System?

2. Have you ever been the victim of a frivilous lawsuit, and why do you feel it was frivilous? (do not discuss pending litigation)

3. Who do you feel is most responsible for frivilous lawsuits clogging the court system? Lawyers or clients?

4. What do you feel can be done to protect both the plaintiffs with legitimate claims, and defendants who are victims of frivilous claims?

5. Do you feel drug manufacturers and manufacturers of medical devices should be sued if a patient is injured by a drug or device that has been used in a manor as directed, and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?

6. Should a doctor, hospital, or other medical practioner be sued if a drug or medical product/device injures a patient, if it is used as directed and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?

7. Should there be limits to the size of jury awards? If so, what would be fair?

How much responsibility do frivilous lawsuits bear on the current problems with the US Court System?I feel that they do a lot.

Have you ever been the victim of a frivilous lawsuit, and why do you feel it was frivilous? (do not discuss pending litigation)Nope, thank goodness, although, I wanted to go against a company for discrimination, but decided against it since I felt it wasn't worth it and I didn't really have any proof. I guess that wouldn't be all that frivolous, eh?

3. Who do you feel is most responsible for frivilous lawsuits clogging the court system? Lawyers or clients?I'd say it's a combination, but lawyers more so, since the lawyers usually talk people into suing in the first place. It's like that whole McDonald's thing a few years back. The people involved wanted to sue McDonald's because it caused them to get fat. The fact that a lawyer encouraged these fools to try and go through with it was just ridiculous!

4. What do you feel can be done to protect both the plaintiffs with legitimate claims, and defendants who are victims of frivilous claims?I wish I could come up with something, but my mind is terribly blank. For the most part, though, I do feel that if it does come to this...someone being sued, then it shouldn't be for some outrageous amount of money. Let's say someone is being sued for...breaking something of someone's. The person being sued should only pay the amount said thing is worth or how much it initially cost and not a cent more.

5. Do you feel drug manufacturers and manufacturers of medical devices should be sued if a patient is injured by a drug or device that has been used in a manor as directed, and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?I don't feel that drug manufacturers should be sued, as with anything, risks, side effects, etc., are usually listed and mentioned prior to purchase. You should know what you're getting into before you get said medication or object. Now, if it's a situation where drug manufacturer knew something and didn't include it on the warning label, then I'd feel that they were liable. Also, if this happened to more than one patient (as far as the machine thing is concerned), then I feel that it should be looked into.

6. Should a doctor, hospital, or other medical practioner be sued if a drug or medical product/device injures a patient, if it is used as directed and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?No, for some of the same reasons I mentioned earlier. If they administered the medication or used the machine as directed, then it's not the fault of the hospital or the doctor.

7. Should there be limits to the size of jury awards? If so, what would be fair?Most definitely!! These people suing for outrageous prices is absurd. As I mentioned above, the amount paid should be fair or the actual worth of said object or case. Some people get like millions of dollars awarded to them. Let's say a doctor gets sued for something. The doctor should only have to pay the damages acquired by the "victim", unless the doctor was dong something shady or just downright wrong, then the license should be taken away.

As for the article you linked, they could've paid out to get her a prosthetic hand or whatever instead of turning her away.

Overall I do feel that the US sues way too much, especially when it comes to doctors. I don't know of any other country that has this problem or even complains about how easy it is to be sued. I'm not sure if this is true or not, but I read someplace that this could also be one of the reasons why health care is such a mess here in the states and why it's so unaffordable.

I suppose America has a reputation of being Sue-Happy. Is this so? Is America truly sue-happy? In this thread we will explore that very question. The above link discusses a case that I feel might be argued either way. However, there are many cases--and I am sure we have all seen one or two--which are the very definition of frivilous.
*shrugs*
Our system in practice.
My opinion is many of these frivilous suits are medically related, but so many more examples outside of medical tort can be mentioned.
Most judges recognize the ridiculous and toss 'em out.

5. Do you feel drug manufacturers and manufacturers of medical devices should be sued if a patient is injured by a drug or device that has been used in a manner as directed, and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?

If a person is using a drug or device as directed but still becomes injured then something is obviously wrong. And the FDA should not be used as a shield.

7. Should there be limits to the size of jury awards? If so, what would be fair?

No limit. (That 6-3 decision in your link is pretty definite)

Given the strict guidelines for bringing a drug or medical device to market as set by the FDA, and that approval of Phenergan via IV/IM with explicit warnings and risks of such delivery were included, the physician is faced with weighing the risks to the benefits. This is often a decision a doctor is faced with.

In this case I would say that the responsibility lays with the physician, not the manufacturer. This is a case of "they did everything right, and within their power, and still got the shaft." Meanwhile, the doctor will one day be faced with this decision again. Should he or she continue to be worried everytime they prescribe a medication according to the manufacturer and FDA's guidelines?

1. How much responsibility do frivolous lawsuits bear on the current problems with the US Court System?

Quite a bit.

2. Have you ever been the victim of a frivolous lawsuit, and why do you feel it was frivolous? (do not discuss pending litigation)

Nope.

3. Who do you feel is most responsible for frivolous lawsuits clogging the court system? Lawyers or clients?

Both. Lawyers would be able to file frivolous suits if there weren't willing clients.

4. What do you feel can be done to protect both the plaintiffs with legitimate claims, and defendants who are victims of frivolous claims?

Loser pays all.

5. Do you feel drug manufacturers and manufacturers of medical devices should be sued if a patient is injured by a drug or device that has been used in a manor as directed, and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?

Yes. I've had asthma since I was a small child. When I got out of college my Dr gave me a medicine that was just on the market - Serevent - which was supposed to prevent asthma attacks. At first I thought it was great cause I stopped having attacks at night, and then I had an asthma attack and the damn thing wouldn't stop. Whenever I'd had an attack before I'd just take Albuterol and the attack would stop. But this time it didn't help, nothing helped. I ended up in resp distress and in the hospital for several days.

My Dr., and I'll never forget this, told me the problem wasn't the Serevent it was me - that I was using the Albuterol inhaler incorrectly and that's why the attack didn't stop. At the time I'd had asthma and had used an Albuterol inhaler effectively for over 20 years, yet he thought that somehow I'd been using it incorrectly all those years and the fact that problem had never materialzed before was irrelevant to him.

So I ignored the Dr and stopped taking Serevent. I've never had the problem again.

Fast forward almost 15 years. Serevent is responsible for hundreds, possibly thousands of asthma related deaths. The drug manufacturer claims, big shock here, that asthmatics are taking the medicine wrong and that's why they're dropping dead. Serevent now carries a black box label and might be pulled by the FDA - but it's still available.

If there was ever a case for a huge lawsuit - it's Serevent. Within a few short months of being released to the public, asthmatics taking Serevent started dropping dead. The FDA has known of the problem for more than 15 years and has done nothing. The drug manufacturer keeps insisting that people are taking the drug wrong but the problem noted with Serevent doesn't happen with any other drugs.

6. Should a doctor, hospital, or other medical practioner be sued if a drug or medical product/device injures a patient, if it is used as directed and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?

Can I tell you how many times I've had Dr's try to give me Serevent again? And when I've explained why I refuse to take it I've gotten the same lame excuse again. I've started lying to them and reporting that I'm allergic to Serevent so I don't have to deal with it anymore.

7. Should there be limits to the size of jury awards? If so, what would be fair?

No idea. In the case of the company that makes Serevent, I'd say they, and the FDA, should pay through the nose.

Serevent, like all drugs that come the market in the USA, had to undergo nearly 20 years of research, development and testing. It commonly comes in two forms: Aerosol inhaler, and Powder Diskus Inhalant. It is a Beta II agonist, which means it can have affects on the heart and circulatory system, as well as directly on the respiratory system. The risks associated with Serevent have been well documented, and know long before the drug came to market. This is another one of those Risks vs Benefit decisions that must be made by your physician.

It is virtually impossible to bring a drug to market without the risk of some injury or severe side affects, possibly death. Even Tylenol, perhaps the safest drug to ever hit the market can kill if someone either takes it improperly, or has hypersensitivity to it.

Serevent must be taken precisely as prescribed, and in the intervals recommended. If you are using a steroid inhaler, do not suddenly stop taking it while taking Serevent as it can cause withdrawl. It should not be taken at closer than 12 hour intervals. Even if taken as directed, it can have some nasty side affects, and possible death. These considerations were made during research and development of the drug, and were presented to the FDA for approval.

So, let me ask you this...if a consumer is made aware of the risks by your doctor and the label--which I am not sure if you were or not--and you accept those risks, who is at fault if something should happen?

The risks associated with Serevent have been well documented, and know long before the drug came to market. This is another one of those Risks vs Benefit decisions that must be made by your physician.

Personally, I think that when the known risks of a drug are severe, the final decision on the choice of drug to be used should belong to the patient, not the doctor. And the doctor should be legally obligated to tell the patient the known risks of the drug.

Though, I have to wonder if maybe it might help the doctor's insurance rates to have the patient sign something acknowledging that they are aware of the risks associated with the drug & are choosing to take it anyway.

Personally, I think that when the known risks of a drug are severe, the final decision on the choice of drug to be used should belong to the patient, not the doctor. And the doctor should be legally obligated to tell the patient the known risks of the drug.

Though, I have to wonder if maybe it might help the doctor's insurance rates to have the patient sign something acknowledging that they are aware of the risks associated with the drug & are choosing to take it anyway.

Current disclaimer (from the manufacturer of Serevent) - it has a slight risk that it might cause an uncontrollable asthma attack.

Reality (from a patient who nearly died as a result of the medicine) - this drug may cause any future asthma attacks you have to be uncontrollable, even with IV medication in a hospital setting. That attack may be severe enough that it will kill you.

If you're calling for informed consent, which disclaimer do you think your doctor will provide you?

BTW - No other asthma medication has this side effect. None. Nada. Zippo. Zero. Yet Serevent has been directly responsible for thousands of deaths due to uncontrollable asthma attacks. It is a dangerous drug and should no longer be on the market. It causes people to die from the very disease it is supposed to protect them from. There are other medications that provide the same protection without the risk. It is criminal - yes criminal - for the FDA to allow this drug to remain on the market. And I wouldn't have any problem with the drug manufacturer being slapped with huge civil penalties.

For Serevent is there a particular patient set for which it is the only option? The FDA has been known to give a black-box warning and really restrict usage of drugs, but not to completely ban the usage of said drug, if there is a patient set for which it's the only option.

Anyways, I think Rig's original case involved a different drug, one which does not carry such a warning.

4. What do you feel can be done to protect both the plaintiffs with legitimate claims, and defendants who are victims of frivilous claims?

I'd say the courts should simply make the criteria which allow people to sue in delict (is it called tort in America?) more rigorous. This is a large area of Scots law, and most other countries base their law on what came out of the Scottish Courts in this area, and what the law here says is that someone can be sued in delict if it is a voluntary act causing harm to the pursuer which falls short of the standard of care demanded by the Court. It is a subjective way of looking at the law but does give the judge the power to throw out frivilous cases.

6. Should a doctor, hospital, or other medical practioner be sued if a drug or medical product/device injures a patient, if it is used as directed and approved by the FDA? What exceptions, if any, should be made?


I don't know about America, but in the UK a doctor and their hospital do have a duty of care to patients and so can be sued for mistakes made if it results in injury. However in many cases there will be no liability because the if the defendor did not know about the risk due to the medical knowledge at the time the cannot be held liable. If the injury is due to the the product being faulty then it would be the manufacturer who would be liable.

Current disclaimer (from the manufacturer of Serevent) - it has a slight risk that it might cause an uncontrollable asthma attack.

Reality (from a patient who nearly died as a result of the medicine) - this drug may cause any future asthma attacks you have to be uncontrollable, even with IV medication in a hospital setting. That attack may be severe enough that it will kill you.

If you're calling for informed consent, which disclaimer do you think your doctor will provide you?

BTW - No other asthma medication has this side effect. None. Nada. Zippo. Zero. Yet Serevent has been directly responsible for thousands of deaths due to uncontrollable asthma attacks. It is a dangerous drug and should no longer be on the market. It causes people to die from the very disease it is supposed to protect them from. There are other medications that provide the same protection without the risk. It is criminal - yes criminal - for the FDA to allow this drug to remain on the market. And I wouldn't have any problem with the drug manufacturer being slapped with huge civil penalties.

Oh, I do agree that they should at the very least be forced to put the stronger warning (rather than the watered-down warning that they'd rather put for marketing purposes). That would be a problem, though, the not putting strong enough warnings on things.

For Serevent is there a particular patient set for which it is the only option? The FDA has been known to give a black-box warning and really restrict usage of drugs, but not to completely ban the usage of said drug, if there is a patient set for which it's the only option.

There is a specific patient set: Exercise-induced asthma, patients with COPD (emphasema and chronic bronchitis) and frequent bronchospasms, patients who frequently experience asthma attacks. Patients who are pregnant can use it, but with much more caution as the drug crosses the placental gradient.

And Yes, it does carry a Black Box warning! It is not to be used to treat an acute asthma attack, because of the length of time it takes the drug to take affect, and the daily dosage must be carefully monitored. There is a specific risk of death noted.

Proper instruction on the use of the Diskus and intervals is required.

Monitor the use of the Inhaler. Use of more than 4 puffs a day can have a paradoxical affect, thus worsening asthmatic conditions.

I have found some reports and a panel of experts have urged limiting further the use of Serevent because the risks outweigh the benefits in previously unidentified cases.

Anyways, I think Rig's original case involved a different drug, one which does not carry such a warning.

The original case I noted in the opening post carries a set of warnings that it can cause tissue necrosis. Those warnings come in a sheet in the box the drug is packaged in, and not normally supplied to the patient. The drug Phenergan, or promethazine as is the generic name, is used as an antiemetic (prevents and treats nausea and vomiting). What I do not know of the case is how severe the lady's nausea/vomiting was. If she was dehydrating, and losing more fluid from vomiting than she was taking in, then this clearly becomes a Risk vs Benefit case.

Monstermom, you suggest that patients be supplied with all the warnings and risks of the medications before they take them, and then they have the final say if it is used. To an extent I would agree with you. However, there isn't always that kind of time, a patient in a position to make those decisions, or a proxy who can decide as well. Informed consent is always the most preferrable form of consent, as the patient is made clearly aware of the risks, and gives consent for treatment. If this consent is not obtained, then healthcare providers have less defense. Generally, hospitals and physicians obtain a general consent to treat the patient, and assume they can act in a way they feel is in the best interests of the patient.

I'd say the courts should simply make the criteria which allow people to sue in delict (is it called tort in America?) more rigorous. This is a large area of Scots law, and most other countries base their law on what came out of the Scottish Courts in this area, and what the law here says is that someone can be sued in delict if it is a voluntary act causing harm to the pursuer which falls short of the standard of care demanded by the Court. It is a subjective way of looking at the law but does give the judge the power to throw out frivilous cases.

Yes, in America it is called Tort Law.

There are certain tests that must be met for medical Negligence or Malpractice suits: A Duty to Act, Deviation of the Standard Of Care, and that your actions or inactions caused harm. This is where we seem to have problems, because so many things in medicine have to be judgment calls, coin flips, etc. Unfortunately, IMO, lawyers have the ability to sell ice to Eskimos. This is where juries buy it.



I don't know about America, but in the UK a doctor and their hospital do have a duty of care to patients and so can be sued for mistakes made if it results in injury. However in many cases there will be no liability because the if the defendor did not know about the risk due to the medical knowledge at the time the cannot be held liable. If the injury is due to the the product being faulty then it would be the manufacturer who would be liable.

Any good trial lawyer will file a lawsuit naming everyone or thing that touched the patient, then whittle it down as he or she goes. In product liability the manufacturer, the company that delivered it on the truck, the warehouse, the firm that sold it to the store or doctor, and then the doctor and his nurses will all get named. They will drag them all in to court, and drop suits against everyone as their cupability (and depth of their pockets) diminishes.

I have been named in several suits. Fortunately, nothing has ever gone beyond discovery for me, though I have testified a few times. Each time I have to retain an attorney, or at least my company or the city did. It wasn't that I did anything wrong, nor did my partner(s). The plaintiff's lawyer just wanted to get us on record, and see how deep our liability coverage was. Most of these cases were not medical malpractice--though the lawyer did try to make it look that way--,but rather they were car accidents, assault cases, and workman's comp cases. The lawyer is fishing. (ironic...a shark fishing)



BTW - No other asthma medication has this side effect. None. Nada. Zippo. Zero. Yet Serevent has been directly responsible for thousands of deaths due to uncontrollable asthma attacks. It is a dangerous drug and should no longer be on the market. It causes people to die from the very disease it is supposed to protect them from. There are other medications that provide the same protection without the risk. It is criminal - yes criminal - for the FDA to allow this drug to remain on the market. And I wouldn't have any problem with the drug manufacturer being slapped with huge civil penalties.

Well, the manufacturer followed the rules as set by the FDA, the FDA approved the medication to be administered specificly as the manufacturer suggests. Where is the manufacturer's cupability?

Well, the manufacturer followed the rules as set by the FDA, the FDA approved the medication to be administered specificly as the manufacturer suggests. Where is the manufacturer's cupability?

Drug trials don't always identify all of the potential problems with a drug. Look at DES and Thalidomide. Manufacturers have to be on the lookout for harmful side effects that didn't surface in their drug trials as be willing to adapt as needed. For the first moment Serevent was released to the public, the death rate began to go up. And it was only for Serevent.

The manufacturer's culpability is in creating and continuing to distribute a drug that causes people to die of the disease it's supposed to help manage. They had to cancel the extended trials for it because the risks were too high! That ought to tell them something - the risk is too high to do an extended drug trial but manageable in much less tightly controlled general population?

I can understand it costs a lot to bring a drug to market, but when the release of the drug reveals a flaw which results in deaths, possibly, just possibly, the drug manufacturer should pull the drug voluntarily. Especially when there are other alternatives, by the same manufacturer, that don't kill people.

I'm not sure if this thread is about litigation in general, or only that pertaining to the pharmaceutical industry..

But yes, this country is lawsuit obsessed, and I think lawyers, insurance companies, and ambulance chasers are ruining the system for everyone.
That's not saying there are no genuine, legitimate cases - sure there are - I'm just saying there are too many cases that are either fraudulent or highly exaggerated, not to mention the awards in some of these cases are ridiculously extravagant and incommensurate.
Everyone talks about the need for national Healthcare (well, those on the left, anyway), but I think that fails to address the real underlying cause of the problem. It's not that people can't get health care, it's that they can't afford health care. And why is that?
There's a number of factors but a very large part of it is due to the rampant litigation that drives up the price of medicine. Doctors and hospital pay absolutely huge malpractice insurance premiums to guard against lawsuits, frivolous and genuine. But the unrelenting frequency of the frivolous suits is what truly drives the prices up.
Fix that, and Health Care gets way more affordable for way more people, and limits the potential for abuses of the system.

And, there's just something intrinsically wrong with a system where citizens are mandated to behave according to laws that they can't even understand due to numerous layer after layer of complexity, a mask of obscurity designed by lawyers.
Law has gotten so foggy and complex that people (and companies) have to pay extravagant amounts of money just to get attorneys to represent them in an attempt to stay within the confines of law. That kind of forced control over others just isn't right.
I'm not much for conspiracies, but I do think that the "legal eagles" - the hotshot lawyers and of course, politicians - are deliberately writing their own ticket to a stranglehold on power over the rest of country.

I lost a son to Serevent. It took another twenty years to fully understand why his massive asthma attack didn't respond to medical treatment, why his lungs "literally froze," according to the doctors who treated him in the ER.

My other major flash point is the dangerous tactics of cigarette manufacturers, who began marketing "mild" versions of their best-selling brands about 25 years ago. The only trouble is that these so-called milder versions were formulated to be more addictive than the original full-strength versions. A few suits have been successfully prosecuted; there probably should have been a lot more.

A little digging turned up this:
FDA Expert panel votes to ban use of serevent and foradil (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/health/policy/12fda.html?_r=1&ref=health). (for asthma...incidentally, the article appears unusually well-written)
The type of analysis the panel relied on, the meta-analysis, is taking several studies and pooling the results of those.
Serevent has a second indication, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders (ie, emphysema), for which I couldn't find any advisories. So, it's going to at least survive on the market for that use, but I would hope doctors are aware of the latest FDA panel ruling (which is different from an FDA ruling, but I digress).

Always happy to discuss via owl some hard-core drug industry chatter; I am a Ph.D. student in chemistry :lol:

What about the question: Is there a problem with the current US court system in regard to civil cases?

According to the data below, things usually considered to be included among frivolous civil cases, such as Medical Malpractice and Product Liability cases make up a small percent of the incoming civil caseload.


http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/civil.htm)

http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/csp/2007_files/Examining%20Final%20-%202007%20-%205%20-%20Civil.pdf
Of particular interest are the caseload clearance rates for each state. The section titled Mississippi Malpractice and Product Liability Cases may also be of interest. According to this section, Tort reform measures taken by that state's legislature resulted in a dramatically increased product liability caseload

There seems to be a lot of data missing from these official reports, so no solid conclusions could be drawn, but you may get an impression of where trends are tending. Clearance rates seem to average pretty high, considering they fluctuate regularly as resources are traded over the years between civil and criminal cases.

A little digging turned up this:
FDA Expert panel votes to ban use of serevent and foradil (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/health/policy/12fda.html?_r=1&ref=health). (for asthma...incidentally, the article appears unusually well-written)
The type of analysis the panel relied on, the meta-analysis, is taking several studies and pooling the results of those.
Serevent has a second indication, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorders (ie, emphysema), for which I couldn't find any advisories. So, it's going to at least survive on the market for that use, but I would hope doctors are aware of the latest FDA panel ruling (which is different from an FDA ruling, but I digress).

Always happy to discuss via owl some hard-core drug industry chatter; I am a Ph.D. student in chemistry :lol:

Thanks for digging that up! Yes, there are, and have been some inevitable risks to the drug. The question is should the manufacturer be liable? Is it a legitimate case to press to the court?

In addition to medical tort cases that might clog up the courts, another great one is incarcerated persons filing lawsuits for no really good reason other than to get out of prison for a day or two. Many prisoners in the US Correctional System know they essentially get free legal services, and they can file a lawsuit for any reason. Legally, no matter how frivilous the case is, such as suing for more access to conjugal visits, suing for the right to have filet mignon served nightly, suing because prison is bad for their sanity, etc..a civil court has to at least give them a hearing. Even if they don't use a lawyer for it, they still get to have their day in court. They could really care less if they are represented on these cases, if it simply means they are not in a dank, stinky prison cell for an afternoon.

Usually, these cases don't take long, but they add up. When someone is doing hard time, they find creative ways to make it pass. Going to court a few times month sure helps. Now multiply that prisoner by several thousands.

it simply means they are not in a dank, stinky prison cell

And I was under the impression US prisons were country clubs.

And I was under the impression US prisons were country clubs.

Let me put it this way. A bad day in Court beats a good day in Prison.

Even Club Fed is not a cakewalk, but might be compared to many other countries prisons. I suppose you could say that given the court system in America, and the number of lawsuits that are successfully argued about the conditions of prisons, prison life is easier thanks to frivilous lawsuits. I always thought that prison was supposed to be just a little bit bad for you...

Oh, now if this won't clog up the courts with frivilous lawsuits, I will just hang it up!

Reps. Henry Waxman (CA) and Edward Markey (MA) wrote a bill that allows individuals to sue the government for ailments allegedly caused by climate change. This could conceivably mean that people suffering with anything from something as serious cancer to something as minor as asthma or sunburns could sue the US, state, and local governments because they neglected to put restrictions on man-made gases that some say cause global warming. Not only that, but one could also sue for ailments that they don't even have but could "expect to suffer" from an ailment.

This comes compliments of Sean Hannity.

Got a link? On the face of it, despite my vehement "we need to do something" stance about climate change, I wouldn't like the bill if it's as you say. But, I'd like to read a bit more to see if Hannity's overstating the case :)

Got a link? On the face of it, despite my vehement "we need to do something" stance about climate change, I wouldn't like the bill if it's as you say. But, I'd like to read a bit more to see if Hannity's overstating the case :)

No link at this time, Sean Hannity just did a spot on on his Fox News program.

No link at this time, Sean Hannity just did a spot on on his Fox News program.

Well, you got me curious, since it didn't quite sound right - and I found a link (http://redgreenandblue.org/2009/04/10/so-sue-me-waxman-markey-might-make-it-legal-to-sue-over-global-warming/) that seems reasonably neutral.

The bill's now in committee and has a ways to go before getting into law, but I would hope that the end result is that the provision in question:


The persons authorized by subsection (a) to commence an action under this section shall include any person who has suffered, or reasonably expects to suffer, a harm attributable, in whole or in part, to a violation or failure to act referred to in subsection (a).


is clarified to allow lawsuits for violations of the Clean Air Act(s) (eg, stuff we already have on the books), rather than for something a bit harder to pin down on any given company (besides, global warming is a macroscale event, not a microscale event, so no one person's to blame).

macro or micro, makes no difference. Some hotshot attorney trying to make a name for him or herself will file. Chances are we will be seeing advertisements from James Sokolov or some other King Of Torts lawyer the minute this provision passes.