subject: Rightful Claims Can Easily Be Separated From Fraudulent Claims [print this page] The most difficult part of this question lies in whether or not any form of legislature would be capable of dealing with fraudulent silica-related lawsuits. A first term house member who is also a physician may solve the problem with a legislative proposal that has gained the support of companies frustrated by the onslaught of meritless lawsuits. The issue here is business groups claiming personal injury lawyers, referred to as greed oriented trial lawyers, are taking advantage of victims with the aid of doctors who are willing to do numerous X-ray readings. It's also their contention a lot of business are over spending money to defend claims that have no merit.
Plaintiffs' attorneys counter with the assertion that legislation is unnecessary, due to alterations in the law which direct asbestos litigation to a central judicial clearinghouse. However, in spite of their defense personal injury lawyers continue to create these fraudulent claims and are now particularly fond of a new variety which focuses on silica exposure.
Pro-business groups indicate that claimants should be required to show some actual physical defect caused by the purported asbestos exposure and show how it has adversely affected their life, not just show supposed damage on an X-ray. In the proposed legislation, which is a modification of bar association protocol, claimants would now be required to undergo a regimen of medical tests to determine the validity of their claim, including a breathing test, X-rays, a full doctors exam, and several other medical standards.
For those workers who have been exposed but are unable to show any harm yet, there is some protection. First, the two year statute of limitations for exposure cases would be put on hold. So if you have been exposed but the necessary symptoms develop well after the two year period, you will still be able to sue, no matter how many years have gone by. Next, the bill would keep insurance companies from denying people their coverage, regardless of whether or not their medical tests show that they have been exposed to asbestos.
Safeguards like this are important, but the response from critics claim the standards are overly stringent and inflexible. One suggestion is to keep the current standards for determining whether a worker can sue, but to have a judge review the claim first to determine if there is a valid medical claim. Under this proposal, workers would still have the same rights as before but the court would be able to separate out those claims that are baseless or fraudulent.
This legislator stated that if physicians are misrepresenting facts regularly, as some have suggested, then strengthening the medical threshold for legal action may not be the answer. This bill wouldn't keep doctors from lying in order to meet the new, higher standard. Regardless of the differing motives behind the new legislation, it seems that the state is serious about trying to flush invalid claims from the system. Workers who have a real, true claim should be able to have their claims processed as soon as possible. Although the members of the house proposed this amendment, this will only effect the bill in the house and not the senate as well.
Rightful Claims Can Easily Be Separated From Fraudulent Claims
