GOP-lead House Tries to Scrap Product Safety Database

In case you aren't aware, the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) keeps a registry of consumer's complaints about defective products, for instance, children's toys containing lead.  As it stands, the only way to obtain this information is for individuals to file a public records request with the CPSC.

Not too long ago, Congress recently enacted a bill that would change all that by publishing a public database where consumers could openly share and access these complaints via an online forum, which was supposed to launch next month.  The bad news?  Yesterday, the Washington Post reported that House GOP members are trying to scrap the database.  Read more here. 

Apparently, Kansas House member Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) offered and won support for an amendment that would cut the finances for publishing the online database.  His argument was that the database would "drive jobs overseas," and "increase the cost for manufacturers and consumers" because of false and misleading complaints, which would hurt a manufacturer's reputation.

This argument appears unfounded.  The article indicates that in February, the CPSC performed a "soft launch" or trial-run of the database; and, after investigating some 900 consumer product complaints, only 4 appeared to be inaccurate.  

Presumably, GOP members are also attacking the database as too expensive.  However, the online forum would only cost $3 million.  This is hardly a drop in the bucket compared to the approximate $1.5 trillion federal deficit reported by the Congressional Budget Office. 

In any case, it appears that an initiative that would have helped inform and educate consumers on product safety will be defeated.

House of Representatives Proposes Draconian Medical Malpractice Reforms

Last month, U.S. House sponsors Phil Gingrey, M.D. (R-Ga.), Lamar Smith (R-TX), and David Scott (D-Ga.) introduced H.R. 5, "The Health Act."  Not only is this bill of questionable constitutionality, it imposes harsh liability caps regardless of the severity of injuries or egregiousness of the defendant's conduct.  Section 4 of the bill, ironically titled, "Compensating Patient Injury," forces a staggering $250,000 cap on all plaintiffs' non-economic damages, "in any health care lawsuit," "regardless of the number of parties against whom the action is brought or the number of separate claims or actions brought." 

The bill is shocking in breadth. This 250K cap would apply to federal and state court cases, and it protects not only negligent physicians, but health insurance companies and pharmaceutical manufacturers as well, apparently applying in any matter "concerning the provision of health care goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate commerce."  The American Association of Justice described the bill as "beyond extreme.  Its authors should focus on real measures that will improve patient safety, not provide welfare to drug and insurance companies that stand to gain the most from this proposal."

To make matters worse, President Obama expressed interest in reviewing proposals like H.R. 5 that eliminate "frivolous" medical malpractice lawsuits. Fortunately, the bill is not projected to pass the Senate.  However, consumers and consumer advocates everywhere should be paying close attention to the bill, which could have devastating consequences across the country.

You can access the text of the bill at: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-5

The American Association of Justice has commented on the bill here.

What is a "Tort"?

In an attempt to provide new content and information for the public, we will be posting updates and ideas that people are free to share, comment on, and respond to with questions. Our first topic is fittingly titled, "What is a 'Tort'?"

Many people do not have the faintest idea of what a tort is and may not have even heard the word "tort" before. However, most of us are familiar with the words "torture" and "tortuous." This should give you a basic idea of what a tort is.

Originally, the word "tort" comes from the Norman French word for "crooked" or "twisted." Today, torts include punching someone in the face, negligently crashing into someone else's vehicle, or distributing a dangerously defective product in the market.

People often confuse tort law and criminal law. Criminal law serves to deter and/or punish the offender. In contrast, tort law serves to make the injured person, typically the plaintiff, whole or as whole as possible. For example, assume that someone stole your laptop computer. Is this a tort? Yes, it would be classified as either "conversion" or "trespass to chattels." However, it is also the crime of "larceny." Whereas the defendant in a criminal trial faces criminal charges and possibly jail time, the defendant in a civil tort proceeding would likely receive either a fine or an injunction. The easiest way to remember this distinction is the O.J. Simpson trial. First, there was the criminal trial, followed later by the civil trial.

Our office practices personal injury law, a variety of tort law that encompasses wrongful death, motor vehicle accidents, and strict products liability. These breeds of tort law are just a few examples of torts where someone was injured and the law allows them recourse for compensation.