Traverse City Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Update on Insurance Bad Faith Reform Package in Michigan

Kevin Elsenheimer — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:47:40 GMT

I've been asked to talk briefly about the manner in which the insurance reform package left the Michigan House of Representatives, and to give an update as to its status in the Michigan Senate.

House Bills 4244, 4844, 5020, and 5144-5151 were passed out of the House on what was essentially a partisan vote (most Democrats voting for, Republicans mostly opposed) in the early Fall. The bills were referred to the Committee on Economic Development and Regulatory Reform in the Michigan Senate. My staff has communicated with the staff of the committee's chairman, Sen. Alan Sanborn, and we have been advised that the bills will not be taken up by the Senate committee, which means that the issue is likely dead for this legislature.

To my mind, it is a shame these bills moved in such a poor state. I think there was a middle ground that could have been reached on the issue which might have led to an improved policy. Unfortunately, policy took a backseat to politics and there was no opportunity given for compromise.

When the bills were voted on by the House, I issued a strongly-worded press release as Republican Leader in the House chastising both the actions of the Insurance Commissioner, Butch Hollowell, and the House Democrats in moving bills that were so one-sided they virtually gauranteed no action in the Republican-led Senate. Let me address each one of these comments.

On the day of the vote on the bills, my office began receiving contacts from Republican members of the House complaining that their offices had been contacted by the Office of the Insurance Advocate regarding clearly political matters, such as who the member's key supporters and donors were, when the members conducted office hours and the names of their political opponents. My members viewed this contact as a poorly-vieled threat on the part of the Insurance Advocate's Office, and by proxy, the Granholm Administration, to seek out political retribution on those who would oppose the Bad Faith Reform package. That this was being done on the taxpayer's dime made the matter even more infuriating.

It should be noted that Butch Hollowell has said he knew nothing about the calls made to my members' offices. I take him at his word, but the actions of his department had a lot to do with the attitude that House Republicans brought to this particular set of bills. But it wasn't the only cause of that attitude.

There are several members of my caucus who would support some kind of bad faith fix. No member of my caucus, however, was willing to support the one-sided language that suddenly came from the House Committee on Insurance. I am told that we had at least one member that was working with the chair to come up with compromise language that would actually have the potential of moving in the Senate. When the bills were suddenly moved to the floor of the House, my Insurance Committee members felt like the rug had been pulled out from under them.

In my experience, this kind of rushed work only happens when a powerful special interest group demands some kind of action. The Justice League (or whatever the trial lawyers call themselves now) was the prime mover of this package, and I called out the House Democrats as pushing the legislation as a pay-off to trial lawyers.

Not surprisingly, I received some contacts from some fellow attorneys about my comments. Tim Smith, who blogs regularly on this site, was particularly unhappy and was kind enough to ask me to explain in this forum what happened on the ground.

In hindsight, my press release was a bit strong, but there is more than an air of truth in my comments. This package moved before its time. It did so without meaningful compromise and as a result is dead in the Senate. The fact that House Democrats moved it in this way, which is unusual, and that the Insurance Advocate's Office was involved led me to believe at the time that the real goal of moving this package was to have political ammunition for future campaigns. I still believe that is the case today. The fact that the MAJ gave 99.73% of the $591 thousand-plus that it spent from July of '08 to July of '09 to Democrats isn't lost on me either.

Someone needs to ask, is the goal here to enact real policy reform or to advance a political objective? This and other policy objectives can be achieved - again, let me stress that I have members who are willing to enact bad faith reform - if the MAJ and the insurance lobby are willing to compromise. That means both sides will need to move. In this instance, I saw those on one side of the argument pick up their toys and go home.

Thanks again to Tim Smith for the opportunity to blog, and I'm sorry for the delay in doing so.

Kevin Elsenheimer

House Republican Leader

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Kevin Elsenheimer

Insurance Reform Package Passes State House - Likely to Stall in Senate

Timothy Smith — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:48:57 GMT

If you're not up to speed on the problem itself or the proposed fix, click here as I wrote an article on this very issue not too long ago - http://grandrapids.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/wrongfully-denied-insurance-claims.aspx?googleid=268418 .

I'm sending a copy of this article directly to our Northern Michigan Representatives. As many of you readers know, we have guest bloggers on InjuryBoard.com and I'm going to turn the reins over to our representatives to see if they can get us up to speed on what has happened and what will happen to these important pieces of legislation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Snowmobile Safety

Timothy Smith — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 10:21:56 GMT

Here in Northern Michigan we are at the beginning of what looks to be one of the best snowmobiling seasons in recent memory. The Traverse City Record Eagle recently published a forum piece by Bill Manson who is the Executive Director of the Michigan Snowmobile Association. Mr. Manson outlined a number of important safety tips that are especially relevant as we close in on Christmas. Mr. Manson noted that Christmas is a time of year that brings families together and with kids being on Christmas break, we’ll have lots of different age groups of riders on Michigan’s trails and roads.

In case you missed the forum piece, the Michigan Snowmobile Association reminded riders of the following safety tips:

With more family gatherings this time of year, this means more snowmobiles and younger riders will be using the state’s trail system. Some of these younger riders will, of course, be less experienced than others, and supervising your minors is critical for their safety.

If a snowmobile operator is under the age of 12 years, Michigan law requires them to be supervised by an adult even if they are riding on private property owned by the parent or guardian.

Snowmobile operators between the ages of 12 and 17 years, can drive a snowmobile if they have a valid snowmobile safety certificate in their immediate possession or under the direct supervision of a person who is at least 21 years of age.

County sheriff deputies will be monitoring and patrolling area trails and roads. Zero tolerance for alcohol and snowmobiling will be strictly enforced at all times. An infraction for operating while under the influence will count against that individual’s motor vehicle operators license.

When operating snowmobiles off of private property, stay on the marked, groomed trails and do not trespass on private property.

If you are involved in an accident while snowmobiling, click here for tips on how to handle the situation.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Chief Justice Taylor "fixes" Judicial Appointment

Timothy Smith — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 11:43:45 GMT

Another example of "unprofesional, improper and unfair conduct as chief justice". This is how a fellow justice described recent actions by Chief Justice Cliff Taylor that improperly influenced a judicial appointment that Michigan's Supreme Court was required to make in appointing a new Chief Judge to Michigan's 37th District Court.

Michigan's Supreme Court is required to appoint "Chief Justices" for all of the State Court benches from probate, to district, to circuit. The process typically involves the judges of a particular court throwing their hat into the ring to be considered for the position of Chief Judge of their particular county court. The 7 justices on the Supreme Court meet to consider the candidates, discuss their position regarding the particular merits or each and then vote.

In this instances, the 37th District Court had a female sitting as current Chief Judge Pro Tem. Her name was Judge Jennifer Faunce. She was a former state representative and, unfortunately for her, a female.....

Initially, both Judge Faunce and Judge John Chmura submitted their names to the Supreme Court for consideration for the chief judge position. Later, on October 7th 2008, Judge Faunce withdrew her name from consideration by faxing the withdrawal to State Court Administrator Carl Gromek. Since it was unusual for a judge to remove their name from consideration, just days before the decision was to be made, Justice Weaver called Judge Faunce to find out why she had so abruptly withdrew her name from consideration when she was the current Chief Judge and the Supreme Court Justices hadn't even met yet to discuss who would be appointed.

On October 8th, Judge Faunce returned Justice Weaver's phone call and explained that she had been called directly by Justice Taylor on the 7th and told by Justice Taylor that there were already 4 votes against her [out of 7 Justices] and that she was going to lose. Judge Faunce informed Justice Weaver that this was why she withdrew her name.

One hour later, at an administrative conference, Justice Taylor announced that the only candidate remaining for the Chief Judge position in the 37th District was Judge Chmura. When Justice Kelly pressed him on what he knew of Faunce's withdrawal, he admitted that he had called her and told her that there were already 4 votes against her and that she might want to withdraw her name.

The thing is, at the time of that phone call, no discussion had been had regarding the position, nor, had any vote been taken.

Chief Justice Taylor's actions in telling Judge Faunce that she might want to withdraw, directly interfered with the chief judge appointment process. The impropriety of his actions are best described by the dissent to the appointment of Judge Chmura which stated:

Chief Justice Taylor’s action of telling Judge Faunce that there were four votes for Judge Chmura and that Judge Faunce was welcome to withdraw or stay, before the justices had ever met to discuss and vote on the chief judge appointment, is another example of his unprofessional, improper, and unfair conduct as chief justice.

Chief Justice Taylor’s actions effectively interfered with the chief judge appointment process because what he told Judge Faunce during his telephone call caused her to withdraw her name before the justices of this Court had even met to discuss the appointment.

Chief Justice Taylor has too often mismanaged the business of this Court. Harmful to the proper functioning of the justice system is Chief Justice Taylor’s inclination to act secretly, not openly and transparently with respect to the administrative business of this Court. Administrative appointments of chief judges—judges who are elected public officials—constitute public administrative business, not personnel matters. Judges are not employees of the Michigan Supreme Court. They are elected officials of their counties or jurisdictions and are effectively only employees of the people of their counties or jurisdictions within the state of Michigan. This inclination toward secrecy also deprives the people of the information they need to properly make judgments on the justices’ performance of their duties. The Supreme Court should not be a secret club run for the benefit of justices and judges.

The fact that Justice Taylor manipulated the appointment process isn't surprising considering the abusive manner that he has historically treated female justices on the Supreme Court bench and the disregard for the legal rights of female litigant's who have been sexually harrassed at their place of employment.

Chief Justice Taylor is up for re-election next month. If you agree with the dissent filed by Justice Weaver and want more accountability, more transparency and less secrecy in our Supreme Court, then cast a vote for Judge Diane Hathaway who is running against Justice Taylor. Her past experience as a criminal prosecutor and current expereince as a Circuit Court Judge combined with a committment to restore fairness and integrity to the court is exactly what Michigan needs right now.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Timothy Smith

Insurance Company Doctors - Round 2

Tim Smith — Fri, 08 Feb 2008 07:56:47 GMT

As I discussed in my prior article, one of the regular tools used by insurance companies to terminate benefits of their insureds is the insurance company doctor. These doctors typically perform a one-time exam of the insured lasting anywhere from 15-20 minutes and then render a report which outlines their cursory examination and their medical opinion that the person either is not injured or is capable of working or that the injuries present are not the result of the automobile accident or work injury but rather some other event. The next thing the insured knows is that they are receiving a letter from their insurance company terminating all of their medical benefits on the basis of this one time evaluation. Even though in most cases, this one time evaluation and the opinions of the insurance company doctor are in direct conflict with the opinions of the treating physicians who have treated this individual for many months and, in some cases, years and who relate the treatment to the injuries sustained in the traumatic event. Is this fair? Not even close.

I think the general public would be surprised as to the credentials and background of some of the more infamous doctors used by the insurance industry here in Michigan. One of the favored neurologist of auto insurance companies such as State Farm, AAA and Allstate is a neurologist at the University of Michigan. His resume shows that he obtained his under graduate degree at the University of Pennsylvania, but did his medical studies at the Municipal University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands. The first couple times I deposed this doctor, he would go on about this prestigious European institution of higher learning where he obtained his medical degree. I took the liberty of securing a copy of his medical licensing file here in Michigan through the Freedom of Information Act. In a sworn statement on his medical license application from the 1960s, it showed that he had attended Jefferson Medical College and the University of Pennsylvania for 11 months prior to attending the University of Amsterdam. The funny thing was, he never mentioned attending this medical school on his resume or made reference to it in depositions when asked where he received his medical training. When this neurologist was pressed on the issue under oath, he admitted to me that not only did he attend medical school for one year here in the United States, but that he had failed out of medical school here in the United State including the class of neurology. This is the "expert" that the auto insurance company was using when they needed a reason to cut off further neurological treatment in cases involving a neurological injury in auto accident claims. How upset would you be if your benefits were terminated based on the expert opinion of a neurologist that failed out of medical school, including neurology?

Another favorite physician of the insurance industry here in Michigan is an orthopaedic surgeon who is licensed in Michigan, Texas, California, New York, Nevada and Indiana. While this sounds impressive on paper, when you begin to dig into his background, you find out that this doctor is no doctor at all, but rather, a medical incompetent who will say anything for the right price. He currently resides in Texas and travels to Michigan for one week per month for the sole purposes of performing examinations for insurance companies. He does the same thing one week per month in the State of California.

In 2004, he made almost $420,000 simply doing workers' compensation exams for workers' comp insurance companies in the State of Texas. For the two years that he practiced in Michigan, he was successfully sued five times for malpractice and the Plaintiff won every case. There have been no less than 15 malpractice suits filed against him in the State of Texas. His track record in Michigan was so bad that Attorney General Michael Cox filed an administrative complaint against this quack to revoke his license. Not only that, this orthopaedic surgeon was arrested in August of 1997 for driving to his soon-to-be ex-wife's attorney's office in his hospital scrubs with $10,000 cash in his car whereupon he parked and through a rock at the window of the law office and ran back to his car. He was arrested by the Houston Police Department at gunpoint for assaulting the office of his soon-to-be ex-wife's divorce attorney.

During the divorce, the wife obtained a million dollar judgment against him for assaulting her during the marriage including choking her and shoving a rag down her throat. His own son even testified at the divorce trial that he watched his dad beat up his mother. Further, during the second deposition that he gave in his divorce in October 1997, he admitted to lying under oath during the first deposition as to the extramarital affairs he had been having. It just doesn't seem fair to me that an insurance company can use a one-time doc such as this individual who is an admitted perjurer who clearly has a mental and /or behavioral disorder and whose competence as a doctor is in question in numerous states. Yet, your insurance company can use him to deny all further medical care and treatment in your particular claim.

Our next insurance company doctor has, on at least two occasions that the State Attorney General is aware of, wrote reports indicating that he had performed both a nerve conduction study and an EMG and later is was documented that he did not perform either of those exams on the particular patient. These were cases where he had been asked by an insurance company to examine an insured, issue the report indicating that he had performed these tests which were negative (when he had performed neither of the tests) and on that basis, the insurance company denied medical care and treatment. The State Attorney General filed an administrative complaint against him alleging that he:

1. Wrote reports indicating he performed tests that he hadn't and came to medical conclusions based on tests never performed;
2. That he was negligent in the performance of these exams;
3. That he was incompetent;
4. That he lacked good moral character;
5. That he engaged in unethical business practices; and
6. That he engaged in unprofessional conduct.

To get the State to drop four of these counts, he plead no contest (admitted the allegations were true) to the allegations of negligence and was reprimanded by the State of Michigan.

Lastly, to show a type of financial bias is in play for these insurance company doctors, the last doctor I will discuss has testified under oath that 100% of his current income comes from performing these evaluations for insurance companies. He earns in excess of 1.2 million dollars per year in fees from these insurance company examinations. He travels to Gaylord, Lansing, Flint, Grand Rapids, Southfield and Kalamazoo to perform these one time exams for insurance companies and has been doing so for 15 years.

Records indicate that in 1997 he performed over 3,200 exams at the request of insurance companies. Not only that, this doctor was successfully sued by a person he examined on behalf of an insurance company because he injured them during one of his insurance company exams. The insured told him that his treating physicians ordered him not to lift his arm up over his shoulder level, but this doctor forced his arm above his shoulder level, tearing out his shoulder and causing even more damage to the poor man. Not only did this doctor lose at the trial court level, but lost at the Court of Appeals and the Michigan Supreme Court levels and ended up having to pay the person he injured for the damages caused during this incompetent insurance company examination.

Lastly, during this doctor's divorce deposition, he was asked if he had any disabilities by the attorney for his wife, to which he testified, "I have peripheral neuropathy, difficulty walking, difficulty feeling things and a number of problems in regard to those disabilities". This particular doctor is hired by insurance companies as a physical medicine and rehab physician. His 15-20 minute exam of the insured includes palpating the skin, feeling and sensing things through his hands on the person's body such as muscle tonicity, trigger points and spasms. How can a person who has testified under oath that he has "difficulty feeling things" complete a competent physical examination of someone when he admittedly is suffering from a peripheral neuropathy? Quite simply, he can't.

So, if you have a medical claim pending and your insurance company wants to send you to their "specialist". Stay on your toes. Odds are, the "specialist" they've sent you to is simply an agent of the insurance company and their got-to-guy when it's time to start denying benefits.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tim Smith

Insurance Company Doctors

Tim Smith — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:34:19 GMT

I think it's important for attorneys to keep track of the different trial and appellate judges they appear in front of. It helps attorneys to give "counsel" to their clients. If you have an understanding about how a particular judge stands on a particular issue, it gives you a better ability to advise and counsel your client as to how their particular legal issue may fare in the courts of this state. So, it has been with a watchful eye that I have followed the beginning of the career of the newest Michigan Appellate Judge, the Honorable Jane M. Beckering.

In one of her first decisions since being appointed to the Court of Appeals by Governor Granholm, Judge Beckering appeared with fellow Michigan Court of Appeals Judges Henry Saad and Kathleen Jansen. The case entitled Spencer v. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Company. dealt with State Farm's denial of certain medical benefits claimed to be due and owning to Ms. Spencer.

In Michigan, we have a no-fault auto insurance system which requires an auto insurer to pay for medical treatment related to injuries caused by the insured's use of a motor vehicle. In this case, Plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. Her treating physicians felt that the treatment and physical therapy that she was receiving were due to the injuries sustained in the accident. State Farm sent their insured to an insurance company doctor who, after a cursory examination, reported that her medical condition could not be related to the car accident. Based solely upon the opinion of their own doctor, State Farm terminated her benefits.

Judge Beckering, in affirming a long line of case law here in Michigan held that it is absolutely improper for an insurer to deny coverage when the insurance doctor's opinion conflicts with and is contrary to the medical evidence from the treating physicians. Judge Beckering found that the Defendant's claims adjuster made no effort to reconcile the conflicting medical information which caused the denial of benefits to be legally unreasonable and justified an award of penalty attorneys fees and costs against State Farm in this auto accident claim.

It shouldn't be a surprise that insurance companies utilize the services of these insurance company doctors to justify decisions to terminate benefits of their insureds. The insurance company doctor or defense doctor has become a standard tool for insurance companies to utilize in attempting to terminate their insured's benefits.

The insurance doctor industry has become quite a cash cow for those medical practitioners willing to engage in an area of practice typically looked at by other doctors as a task for those who are unable to make a living in private practice. In fact, there are a number of insurance doctors in this state that make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year performing these one time exams at the request of insurance companies.

Not surprisingly, many of them have questionable academic backgrounds, a private practice which produces many malpractice claims and, in some cases, even criminal convictions.

Tune in to my next post as I discuss some of Michigan's more notorious insurance doctors.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tim Smith

Insurance Fraud

Tim Smith — Fri, 25 Jan 2008 10:33:11 GMT

First things first. I don't handle medical malpractice cases. But, I do handle cases involving insurance fraud and claims involving insurance companies who have broken their contract with their clients. That being said, when insurance companies perpetrate a fraud upon the public, it typically catches my attention.

In 1993, the Medical Malpractice Reform Act (MMRA) was enacted here in Michigan. One of the original sponsors of the Bill, former Representative Richard A. Bandstra, now Judge Richard A. Bandstra on the Michigan Court of Appeals, indicated that the goal of the legislation was to lessen the cost of medical insurance and/or to prevent the escalation of premiums. Both prior to and since that Act, insurance companies have claimed repeatedly that the reason for rising malpractice insurance rates is the trial attorneys and the filing of frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits. In looking at the facts, since the Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1993 was enacted, it is clear that the trial attorneys and/or the lawsuits that they file have little, if anything, to do with the insurance rate gouging that has occurred within the malpractice insurance industry.

According to a recent article in Michigan Lawyer's Weekly, since 1993, medical malpractice insurance rates have increased by approximately 51% for one of Michigan's largest writers of medical malpractice insurance, American Physicians Assurance Corporation. During that same time period, the filing of new medical malpractice lawsuits is down 75%. Further, between 1991 and 2006, American Physician Assurance Corporations payments on medical malpractice claims against it's Michigan doctors dropped approximately 60%.

If I was a physician who has been told for the last 15 years that my insurance rates have gone up each year due to the trial attorneys and then I found out that medical malpractice filings were down 75% and the amount of money that my insurance company was paying out was down 60%, while my own premiums had increased 50+%, I would be absolutely livid.

I suppose the trial attorneys are an easy target and one that, not only our legislature and general public, but doctors as well, have demonized as the cause for rising insurance rates. But the fact of the matter is since the Michigan Medical Malpractice Reform Act of 1993 was enacted, insurance rates are way up, lawsuit filings are way down and, more importantly, the amount of money that the insurance companies are paying out on lawsuits has dropped significantly. This leaves only one reason for the rising insurance rates - large profit margins for medical malpractice insurance companies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tim Smith

Supreme Court Justice Cliff Taylor Posts Failing Grades

Tim Smith — Wed, 23 Jan 2008 10:14:38 GMT

Anyone who has ever looked for a mechanic to fix their car or perhaps a doctor to treat a family member, they have often asked friends and acquaintances as to their experiences with a particular auto body shop or physician. If the mechanic or doctor has received good reviews, more often than not, you end up using that mechanic or doctor to fix your particular problems. Recently, the state wide periodical that caters solely to attorneys polled those members who had appeared before Michigan Supreme Court to assess the performance of the seven Supreme Court Justices. Current Chief Justice Cliff Taylor finished second to last in what can only be described as a failing grade.

Michigan Lawyers Weekly polled attorneys who have appeared at least once in the last six years in front of the Michigan Supreme Court. They were asked to rate the Justices on a scale of 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent) in eight different areas described as "Judicial Characteristics".

Chief Justice Taylor was ranked dead last in the areas of "Overall Knowledge of the Law" and "Thoroughness of Opinions" which are the written opinions where each of the Judges explain why they ruled as they did. Justice Taylor's overall rating of a 2.91 had him only 6/100th of a point above Justice Robert Young, Jr. who was the lowest scoring Justice at 2.85.

What does this tell us? It tells us that it's time for a change. Justice Taylor is up for re-election this November and the complaints not only from attorneys in this poll, but also from his own fellow Justices about his behavior on the bench and legal abilities seem to be justified. It's time for a change. At this point, I don't know who, if anyone, will run against Chief Justice Taylor, but I can't imagine that the candidate could perform more poorly than our current Chief Justice has performed during his tenure on the bench.

The funny thing is, I've talked with attorneys and non-attorneys. I've talked with Republicans and Democrats. I've talked with folks that are pro-tort reform and those that are against it and nearly everyone I've talked with recognizes that Justice Taylor just isn't cutting it on the Supreme Court bench.

Remember this when it comes time to vote.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tim Smith

Michigan Senators Shielding Drug Companies

Tim Smith — Mon, 19 Nov 2007 09:57:10 GMT

In 1995, Michigan passed a law that granted immunity to drug manufacturors when their products injured or killed an individual. This was the year that Michigan became the only state in the entire nation to grant this protection. Did other companies whose products injure and kill Michigan Citizens get the same immunity? Remember the Ford Pinto - the car that blew up when it got rear-ended? Remember lead based paint? Remember asbestos based products? All those companies were held responsible for the individuals they blew up and poisoned from exposure to their products.

The legal immunity that Michigan gave the drug industry for dangerous products was recently recognized by our House of Representatives as being completely unfair as it left Michigan citizens without any legal recourse when they were injured or killed by dangerous drugs. Merck - the makers of Vioxx - have recently agreed to pay out $4.8 billion dollars to those they injured when they released a drug on the unsuspecting public that Merck KNEW caused damage to the cardiovascular system of the patient. Will those that have been injured or died here in Michigan take part in any portion of that settlement? The jury is still out on that issue due to the complete immunity that Michigan's legislators granted the drug companies in 1995.

Michigan citizens had a chance to get the protection from dangerous drugs that every other citizen in every other state enjoys. In early 2007, a bill passed the Michigan House of Representatives that revoked drug company immunity and it was sent to the Michigan Senate for approval. Your senators have tucked that bill away in the deepest recesses of the senate sub-committee structure where they have ensured it will probably never see the light of day.

This isn't the only bill that has been hidden by Michigan's senate. New laws to protect us against drunk drivers, to protect infants and minors, to protect those that are mentally incapacitated, and other bills that help the individual citizens of the State, not just the corporate citizens are buried in a senate sub-committe structure to ensure they never see a vote.

Why? Just look at who is funding your particular senator's campaign was chest: insurance companies, Mi Chamber of Commerce, lobbyists for large Corporations in Michigan and other corporate interest groups. When laws like the 1995 Drug Immunity act were passed, our government told us it was to help Michigan's economy. In the last 10 years, our state's legislature and court system has taken away a myriad of individual rights under the pretext of making the state's business economy stronger.

Has it? As a state, are we better off now than we were 12 years ago? Not even close. We're last or near last in about every relevant indices that one might use to compare Michigan to the rest of the U.S.

Who has suffered the most? Car accident victims, injured children and mentally incapacitated adults, and other individuals who have been injured due to others negligence. It is ironic that those who need the most protection have been left most vulnerable by our court system and our legislators.

So what can we do? Get educated and vote. Find out how your senator is voting on issues like drug company immunity. Let him or her know that you're watching how they vote and that you vote too.

To find out who your Representative is, click here -> Representative
To find out who your Senator is, click here -> Senator
To see how your representative/senator is voting on issues that are important to you, click here-> Voting

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices, and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tim Smith

Justice for everyone except Michigan

Tim Smith — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:56:56 GMT

A 1996 law here in Michigan gave the drug industry the immunity their lobbyists wanted - complete imunnity for prescription drugs here in Michigan. Since then, Michigan residents have had no ability to hold pharmaceutical manufacturors of drugs like Avandia, Celebrex, fen phen and others including Vioxx/Merck Co. who just agreed to pay $4.85 billion dollars to settle lawsuits over what some have called the most dangerous drug ever to have been released upon the American public.

It was a pretty straightforward case of consumer deception. Evidence from the pending lawsuits against Merck and their drug Vioxx clearly demonstrated that they knew of the health risks of Vioxx as far back as March, 2000. Even more damning to Merck was evidence showing a deliberate effort on their part to bury the evidence that Vioxx created significant risk of heart disease.

On Nov. 1, 2004, the eastern edition of The Wall Street Journal broke the story: "Warning Signs: Emails Suggest Merck Knew Vioxx's Dangers at Early Stage," discrediting Merck's feigned ignorance of Vioxx's cardiovascular risks. According to a memo dated Nov. 21, 1996, Merck officials first "wrestled" with the issue of Vioxx's dangerous effects in 1996 when they considered running a trial to demonstrate that Vioxx is gentler on the digestive system than other painkillers, like aspirin. Officials feared that the study would also reveal Vioxx's cardiovascular risk because the subjects of course would not be able to avoid the risk by taking aspirin. The controversy continued into 1997, when Merck official Briggs Morrison sent an email dated Feb. 25, 1997, arguing that, unless test subjects received aspirin, the revealed cardiovascular risks would "kill [the] drug."
Now, let's examine Merck's concerns for a moment: Based on leaked ducuments, Merck officials knew that Vioxx posed cardiovascular risk as early as 1996 and, yes, they were worried about it, because if it were revealed, the risk might decrease sales. In response to Morrison's email, Alise Reicin, who is now Merck's vice president for clinical research, emailed that the company was in a "no-win situation" and proposed that people with high risk of cardiovascular problems be excluded from the story, so that the difference between the rate of cardiovascular problems associated with Vioxx and other drugs "would not be evident."

The largest smoking gun in the evidence unearthed by attorneys for the families of those injured and killed by Vioxx was a communication between Merck's patent department and Merck researchers. Buried in the documents, was an admission by Merck researchers that

Vioxx increases the risk of potentially fatal cardiovascular disease by reducing the body's production of a substance called prostacyclin, which prevents platelet coagulation. This reduction may alter the ratio of prostacyclin to thromboxane, a substance which can constrict blood vessels, resulting in excessive blood clotting, and, consequently, heart attacks and strokes -- the very disorders that Merck denies Vioxx promotes.

What does this mean for Michigan citizens who were injured by this drug? Well, thanks to Lobbyists from Merck and other pharmaceutical giants, the 1996 law which grants to drug companies completele immunity in Michigan, these individuals and families will never get their day in court and may never share in the $4.85 billion dollar Vioxx settlement. Is this fair? Hell no.

If this kind of lawmaking which was enacted by your Representative and Senator and protects their corporate donors at the expense of people like you and me, upsets you, let your Senator and Representative know about it. Next time their is an election, call them up and ask them how they plan to vote on the currently proposed law which will do away with drug company immunity here in Michigan. Let them know that you won't stand for Michigan being the only state in the nation with this type of blanket immunity for drug companies. Let them know you VOTE.

For more information on this subject, please refer to the section on Drugs, Medical Devices and Implants.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Tim Smith