Too Poor for Justice

Too Poor To Sue

November 21, 2011

The Michigan Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, denied hearing a case that calls into question an indigent person’s right to sue for medical malpractice.  By doing so, the High Court has accepted the status quo where an individual’s Constitutional right to seek judicial redress for injuries will be denied if that person is too poor to pay the court entrance fee. 

The case, Rebecca Williams Jackson v. Mecosta County Medical Center, et. al., went to the Michigan Supreme Court on August 30, 2011.  In a unanimous response, the court beat its average time by half in returning a terse “considered and denied” refusal to hear the case.  Where the average is 5 months, the Williams Jackson ruling was returned in a mere 83 days (counting weekends)—two and half months.  With that ruling, the High Court reaffirms that a plaintiff in a medical malpractice case must submit with the complaint a doctor’s note stating that the case, in his view, has merit.  But it cannot be just any doctor, or just any note.  It must be a physician of equal qualifications (including minor certifications) who performs those duties at least half of his time.  This note also must be a sworn statement.  The logistics of obtaining such a note is daunting to an established firm with large on-hand cash (the going rate for such a statement runs from $1,500–$5,000, depending on speciality, for EACH defendant).  For an indigent litigant, this simple doctor’s note becomes an absolute barrier to accessing the court.  In a medical malpractice situation, suing is the only recourse to confront the physician and the only means of obtaining remediation for the injuries.  If this is taken away, then the injuries are compounded by injustice.

With the Court’s refusal to hear Williams Jackson’s case, they have institutionalised economic discrimination in the violation of one of the most basic rights a US citizen has—the right to justice.

 

Related articles

• Constitutional Rights For Sale in Michigan: Michigan Supreme Court Denies Access to the Poor (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
• There is No Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Crisis, Says Arizona Attorney (prweb.com)

ProPublica’s Podcast: The Shrouded Role of Special Interest Groups in Influencing Election

If you would like more information on how big money is being funnelled int

o the election machine, give this podcast a listen.  You may also find the transcript here.

ProPublica defines itself as “journalism in the public’s interest.”

Check out this representative quote:

The Supreme Court has a really mixed record on partisan gerrymandering. There are definitely Supreme Court justices who think that it’s totally unconstitutional, and that it’s really appalling that most redistricting that happens in the United States is done on a partisan basis, and ends up really benefitting particular politicians and particular parties, but not benefitting voters.

But it’s a little bit tricky because there is no Voting Rights Act for partisan politics and there are Supreme Court justices who just really don’t think that the 14th Amendment and equal protection of the laws applies to Democrats and Republicans as separate citizens. That’s the first thing that’s tricky about partisan gerrymandering.

Another Tort retort

I have previously posted about writing a comment on a defense-attorney led site defending the documentary Hot Coffee.

I did it again.   My thoughts are too good to only post once , so here they are:

I think, by denigrating the main use of the Liebeck case in popular culture, that you are missing the point of both its use in the documentary and in political discourse. For just the very reasons you cite (it was, duh, coffee–nothing to sue over), that case has a special power. For those of your ilk, it embodies the over-reaching of those out for a free ride, meal ticket, or the like. In short, an abuse or misuse of the court.

For others, it is an example of how the courts act as a corrective agent against abuse, corruption, and incompetence (especially medical personnel). Without the correction of a good tort case, industry and business may well still be employing 10 year olds to pull the coal carts, attend segregated schools and the like.

Back to my point…the hot coffee case, suing for being stupid, is the distillation of talking points: until one learns more about it. Point is, the tort in that case worked. McDonald’s altered its practice (which had hurt 900 others to varying, shall I say it, degrees) to the point that such “accidents” (one of McDonald’s arguments–echoed here–was that with such a high number of servings that the accident rate was statistically insignificant: until it happens to you or to one you love) have been reduced.

What you fail to point out is that “tort reform” does nothing to mitigate such suits. Caps on damages, reduced statutes of limitations, affidavits of merit, pre-suit notices, witness requirements, etc., these work to bias a case toward the defense.

“Tort reform,” rather, provides defense with a ready stable of tactics and defences which to attack a case, shielding their clients from a frontal assault. It is defensive jujitsu.

So, with that, I wonder why, as defense counsel, you should complain so much… Nothing could be better for business than more examples of suing for being stupid.