Tag: Liability

Senate Bill 6 Stirs Emotions at Public Hearing in House Judiciary

An emotional public hearing was held this morning to discuss Senate Bill 6 dealing with medical professional liability for nursing home administrators.

Over 30 people spoke to the committee; some for the bill and some against.

Many wives and children of family members who had died while in the care of nursing homes stood to recount their stories and express the pain and anger they had felt toward the quality of care their loved ones had faced. They pleaded with lawmakers on the House Judiciary Committee, asking them to not pass the bill or at least to think before they pass it.

Three words remained constant among many of those family members who shared their stories. The words used were neglected, ignored, and abused.

Amy Kayson, is an attorney who has represented families of residents and the residents themselves for almost 20 years. She stood to oppose the bill.

“I want to tell you about a guy that we represented here in West Virginia who had been a World War II vet,” Kayson said, “and because there wasn’t sufficient staff to turn and reposition him in bed and to change him when he had an accident, he developed pressure sores so severe that they went to his very bone. Left in urine and feces on multiple occasions. You know what he complained about to the state investigators when they came to talk to him? He said I know they don’t have time to give me the care that I need, but the worst part is smelling my own flesh rot, and I know what that smells like because I’m a World War II vet. You want to cap his non-economic damages, but you’re going to leave his actual damages alone. He doesn’t have any economic damages. He’s not going to lose future earnings; he’s in a nursing home. What he’s lost is dignity. What he’s lost is the ability to live out the last few days of his life without pain. You cannot put a price on that. I ask that you not cap that.”

One of the speakers who supported the bill, Dr. Hoyt Burdick, a physician in Huntington, said it would broaden and clarify the definition of medical activities and providers.

“Twenty years ago, I was an aim in a medical mal-practice suit by a notorious trial lawyer from southern West Virginia, who is also one of only a couple of senators with a perfect voting record opposing medical professional liability reform,” Burdick said, “Incidentally, I was released with prejudice on the day before the trial with no real explanation. An important part of my job at Cabell and Marshall is recruiting and retaining physicians. When the malpractice lawsuit crisis was in the headlines, it seemed almost impossible to successfully recruit and retain physicians even those who grew up and were trained here. Speaking from experience, there was a time not long ago when West Virginia had serious problems with our professional liability system. Dr. Cater and others have outlined some of the progress we have made with tort reform, professional liability reform. We’ve had sustained reductions in the number of professional liability lawsuits, tax payers have benefited through reductions and suits and settlements by the board of risk management for state employed positions. The dollars that are not spent on insurance premiums and excessive tort settlements sustain medical practices, support employment in the healthcare sector.”

Andrew Paternostro, another attorney who has represented residents in nursing homes, spoke to oppose the bill.

“If you don’t want lawsuits, increase the standard of care or simply meet the standard of care,” Paternostro said, “Don’t come into a legislature and ask for a bill to be passed, so you’re damages can be limited, so a person who’s backside has rotted out and had to have surgery where the skin was taken out with a scalpel and scissors that you have to say to their loved ones, the most I can get you for the four surgeries is 250,000 dollars. The most I can get you for an amputated leg, because they allowed it to rot off, maybe 500,000 dollars, but they’ll argue profusely it’s 250,000 dollars. These cases are not defensible in a judicial system, in a fair judicial system with the judges we have and the jurors we have. I like the jurors, they listen to West Virginians, they know what to do, and to pass this act would simply take that power from jurors, from West Virginians, and it would be an imperious act to do so.”

Larry Pack, a leader at Sunrise Healthcare Management said he supports the bill because of insurance issues.

“Currently we’re experiencing major insurance problems,” Pack noted, “the type of problems we haven’t experienced, we haven’t seen since the early 2000s, before the legislature enacted the major reforms to the MPLA. Insurers simply, quite simply don’t want to write our company, they don’t even want to talk to us. We’ve only been able to find one company that’s willing to write us and were willing to quote our company. Insurance companies are leery of West Virginia; they’re leery of the litigation environment. Recent court decisions has eroded the MPLA protections, and the insurers have taken notice.” 

Senate Bill 6 has already passed the Senate 31 to 1.

Liability, Non-Partisan Elections, & Labor Cause an Uproar in the House

For years, Republicans have called for nonpartisan election of Supreme Court Justices. But the Democrats never put the issue on the agenda. Now having taken control of the House, Republicans finally got their wish.

Before confronting that issue, the house took up Senate Bill 13, which protects a landowner from liability if someone is injured on his or her property.  The bill re-instates the open and obvious doctrine.  It means a property owner won’t be responsible for injuries that a person sustains if it’s clear what the conditions are.  

Delegate John Shott, chairman of the Judiciary committee, stood to explain that this bill would be worthwhile.

“What we’re doing here is, today if we vote in favor of this bill is saying that regardless of a few remote horror stories, we think its legitimate policy of this state to protect those people who have premises. In those situations where the injuries caused by something as well known and obvious to the person who’s injured as it would be to the person who occupies those premises,” Shott explained.

Senate Bill 13 passed 81 to 18.

Then it was on to House Bill 2010, the non-partisan election bill.

Again, Judiciary Chairman Shott explained why this is good for the state.

“This removes the taint of a partisan election from the operation of our judiciary,” Shott said, “and it extends not only to our state’s Supreme Court of Appeals, but to our circuit judges, our family court judges, and our magistrates, and this is intended to remove any perception that those individuals might be beholding to a particular party organization or a particular group of people with whom that party is perceived as being affiliated.”

Delegate Barbara Evans Fleischauer stood to oppose the bill, saying voters want to know which party their candidate is affiliated with.

“Well in our state, we’ve had some pretty bad experiences with money in judicial elections, and there have been accusations that judicial seats have been purchased by individuals. By not knowing what party a person’s in, you are deprived of information, and that you otherwise would have in any other election,” Fleischauer said.

But the bill passed overwhelmingly 90 to 9.

But there was uproar about House Bill 2217, relating to the qualifications of the commissioner of labor. This bill changes the current definition of the labor commissioner by taking out the words “labor interests of the state” and inserts “with experience in employee issues and employee-employer relations.”

Delegate Mike Caputo, a labor representative, clearly did not like the bill.

“This is nothing, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, with all due respect but a poke in the eye with a sharp stick to the working men and women in West Virginia,” Caputo explained, “I just cannot believe that we’re about to vote on a bill that could allow a Don Blankenship to become the commissioner of labor in the state of West Virginia. I can’t believe we’re about the vote on a bill that someone who had nothing but the interest of the corporation at heart their entire adult life can now become the commissioner of labor. Now nothing against corporate executives, we need them, and they need to tend to the business of that corporation, so we can have jobs in West Virginia, but when it comes down to the grassroots level of that working mom, somebody needs to look out for her, and nobody’s going to look out for her other than someone who worked their entire adult life for a paycheck and took the interest of workers at heart.”

Delegate Michael Ihle spoke to try and reason with the word change, using an example from his own experience.

“I deal with both union and nonunion employees, and one of the accomplishments that we, and I do say we, have is a month into my term, we negotiated a labor agreement that was passed unanimously, and I say that not to brag on myself but to brag on our employees. But more relevantly, I say that to illustrate that the interest of management and the interest of labor are not always mutually exclusive,” Ihle said, “And I feel some of the rhetoric that I’ve heard from those who oppose the legislation reflects that belief that those interests must naturally conflict with each other, and I don’t believe that to be the case at all. I think if we’re to move our state forward, if we are to create an environment that is friendly to more jobs for both union and nonunion employees, all interest of labor, if we’re to do that, then we have to move beyond the mentality that labor and management are mutually exclusive.”

House Bill 2117 passed 64 to 35.

House Bills Move to Next Stage Without a Hitch

A number of bills were on the floor Tuesday from child welfare to the election of judges to the qualifications of the labor commissioner; all of them passed to their next stages without much of a hitch.

Eight bills were on the House Floor, and only House Bill 2200 was on third reading. This bill is to revise, rearrange, consolidate, and recodify the laws of the state relating to child welfare and juvenile disposition.

Judiciary chairman, Delegate John Shott, is the lead sponsor. He described the bill to be more user-friendly for those who have to deal with this area of law.

“There have been complaints for many years over how difficult it is to work in this area and how it can lead to misinterpretations, misunderstandings,” Shott noted, “and this is an effort that this bill, it’s got bipartisan support, it’s got widespread support among those who need to be able to navigate these complicated provisions of law, and Mr. Speaker I urge passage.”

House Bill 2200 passed 98 to 0.

The next five bills were on second reading; the amendment stage. First up was Senate Bill 13, which has to do with the liability of a possessor of real property for injuries caused by open and obvious hazards.

Delegate Shott proposed an amendment.

“The amendment that has been passed in the judiciary committee to modify the senate version, Senate Bill 13, basically recognizes a very limited exception to the open and obvious doctrine,” said Shott, “and that is where the danger on the landowner’s property is a violation of a law intended for the public safety, and that violation caused the injury, then in that narrow situation, the landowner is still responsible.”

Shott’s amendment passed and the bill progressed to third reading.

House Bill 2010 was up next. This bill relates to electoral reforms requiring the election of justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals, circuit court judges, family court judges, and magistrates to be on a nonpartisan basis.

Delegate Tim Manchin proposed an amendment that would extend public campaign financing to circuit court judges. It’s already in place for candidates for the Supreme Court.

“That program has worked. As a matter of fact, we have a current Supreme Court justice now who sits in the chamber upstairs because of this bill. It was a private project at the time, which is now been made permanent for Supreme Court judges,” Manchin explained, “The reason that I’ve offered this bill [amendment] is because, quite frankly, the only real reason to have nonpartisan judges, or the only stated reasons, are two; number one, so that there not beholden to anybody and they don’t appear to have partiality after they’ve been elected. Number two is to cut down on the cost of election, however if we miss this opportunity to extend the public campaign financing to those circuit court judges, we will leave in probably the greatest threat to the appearance of impartiality that there is, and that’s direct campaign contributions.”

Delegate Shott stood to oppose the amendment but in good faith.

“This is a good idea, and it’s an idea that it’s time may come, just not today,” Shott said, “I’m going to speak against this amendment not because I don’t think it’s a good idea, I think it’s where we want to be at some point, but I’m concerned that it complicates a bill whose focus is to take the first step, and that is to make these judicial elections nonpartisan.”

Delegate Manchin stood again to encourage the amendment be adopted.

“We have an opportunity right here to do something good right now and not wait until later, until all other kinds of people weigh in,” Manchin said, “and tell us all other reasons why the system won’t work, when in fact it already has.”

Delegate Manchin’s amendment was rejected 67 to 31, and House Bill 2010 moved on to third reading.

Also up for passage Wednesday will be House Bill 2217, relating to the qualifications of the Commissioner of Labor. The bill removes the term “labor interests of the state” and inserts language to require the commissioner to have knowledge and experience in employee issues and interests including employee-employer relations.

Exit mobile version