Pensacola Personal Injury Lawyer - Civil Justice System

Law Firm Sounds Alarm on Asbestos Reform

Robert Blanchard — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 11:23:37 GMT

By way of a recent interview on GoLeft TV, my firm is looking to bring the spotlight back on the efforts of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce effort to victimize those suffering with asbestos related cancer. Citing a long string of court victories, the Chamber's National Camber Litigation Center is letting everyone know it is stepping up its tort reform effort in 2008. The most likely target will be an asbestos bill that will be watered down enough to pass a Democratic Congress, but just enough to give them a preemption argument to use in the courts. With a slew judicial seats held by Reagan and Bush appointees, that is all they will need to take away the right of those suffering with asbesotos related cancers, like mesothelioma, to pursue adequate remedies in the courts. See the interview at GoLefttv.com.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Lawsuits Decline

Robert Blanchard — Thu, 03 Jan 2008 15:52:39 GMT

There have been some news reports that not as many product liability lawsuits were filed last year (2007) as were filed in 2006. Of course, 2006 was an unusual year for the number of filings, given all the lawsuits filed over Vioxx and heart devices. The number of lawsuits filed in 2007 was still greater than were filed in 2005. I can foresee tort reform advocates pointing to this as part of some kind of long-term trend of lawsuit abuse. What I see in my practice is that in reality more lawsuits are being filed over injuries because more people are being injured. Corporations know that they can make huge profits even after paying off the injury claims, so there is no incentive for them to try to make safer products. Just look at the news reports on the Vioxx settlement, which despite being a large settlement, was still seen as a boon for the company and their stock price went up. Until we have a tort system that is strong enough to dissuade corporations from the wanton conduct that results in injuries, we will continue to handle a large number of lawsuits filed. Those who want to see the number of lawsuits decline should urge better regulation and more accountability for those who make harmful products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Why Alberto Gonzales?

Robert Blanchard — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:53:08 GMT

By the time I called the ABA about their boneheaded selection of Alberto Gonzales as "Lawyer of the Year," I already knew they were backpedalling and trying to explain that it was not an honor, just a selection of which lawyer was most in the news. This rationale may work for a news magazine like TIME (Khadaffi Man of the Year, etc.), but it does not wash with the ABA Journal. This is the publication of a group of lawyers and we can't call someone "Lawyer of the Year" without making it sound like a high honor. Is it any wonder we are getting our heads bashed in in public perception? We have to realize that such pronouncements feed the public's view of lawyers. This selection of Gonzalez was so stupid that some lawyers don't think it was accidental (see Mike Papantonio's video blog on the subject at www.golefttv.com.)
Well, I left an angry message demanding a personal explation from the ABA's "Office of the President" and never got a call back. Later though, the ABA issued a retraction and changed the title to "Newsmaker of the Year." I still feel like I have a perjuring, Geneva-Convention-bashing, political firing hack of a so-called attorney saddled around my reputation as a lawyer. Way to go, ABA.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Cop Sues Family in Slip & Fall Case

Courtney Mills — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:10:31 GMT

Sgt. Andrea Eichhorn of the Orlando Police Department is bringing a negligence suit against the family of a drowning baby she helped rescue earlier this year. Eichhorn alleges that while rendering aid in January of this year at the residence of Richard and Maggie Cosmillo, she slipped on some water and broke her knee, keeping her out of work for over two months. Sgt. Eichhorn further maintains that the injuries sustained were the result of the Cosmillos' negligence.

Eichhorn is a twelve-year Orlando Police department veteran with an outstanding departmental record. According to published reports by the Sentinel, she has a long and distinguished career on the force.

On the day in question, Eichhorn arrived to the house just after rescue personnel had retrieved an infant who nearly drowned in a pool. Sgt. Eichhorn slipped on a puddle in the house and broke her knee, which kept her on employment disability for months.

Although the police department had taken care of her disability while she was out of work, Eichhorn will likely suffer permanent injury from the knee break, such as arthritis. The department medical & disability checks were not enough to cover other expenses, for which Eichhorn is seeking an unspecified amount.

For more information on this subject, please review our section on Premises Liability / Slip & Fall

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Courtney Mills

$65,000,000 Attack on the Jury System

Robert Blanchard — Sat, 05 May 2007 11:09:36 GMT

Well Fox News and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce are at it again, misstating the facts of some crazy lawsuit. The silly complaint filed against a dry cleaner over a pair of pants for $65,000,000 is being touted by big business as an indictment of our entire civil justice system. Nevermind that the suit will soon be thrown out of court and the idiot who filed in on behalf of himself will be fined or sanctioned. Never mind that the lawyer defending the dry cleaner is a member of the DC Trial Lawyer Association and the attorney filing the suit is not. Big business wants the propaganda value to get you to give up your rights to compensation when they injure, maim and kill. Here is how Fox New lies :
1. They suggest this is an injury case when it is not, it is a commercial case.
2. They suggest that "Trial Lawyers" are at fault, when it is actually trial lawyer that is defending the case.
3. They claim the case shows the need for legal reform, when the case has nothing to do with the typical cases where citizens need redress for injuries.
4. They claim this shows some kind of "lawsuit crisis" or "lawsuit explosion" even though this is only one stupid case.
Speak out against this manipulation of public opinion, its only goal is to get the public to give away the protections of our jury trial system.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard

Tort Reform - Not a Real Issue

Robert Blanchard — Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:56:20 GMT

If you listen to insurance companies, they will say that limiting lawsuits - "tort reform" - is the top concern of American voters.Using their own "push polls" and fantasy arguments, corporate interest spokesmen have created the myth that this issue is some kind of national priority. Yet time and again, evidence shows that the public couldn't care less.
Senator Rick Santorum made "tort reform" a part of his campaign and was beaten by opponent Bob Casey, who opposes these efforts. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, one of the most powerful and wealthy proponents of corporate immunity and limiting legal rights, spent over half a million dollars on an ad praising Santorum for his pro-"tort reform" stance.
Other congressional candidates who used tort reform and attacks on trial lawyers in their races also lost, including Mike Whalen in Iowa, beaten by Bruce Braley; Joy Padgett in Ohio, defeated by Zack Space; and Clay Shaw in Florida, beaten by Ron Klein.
In West Virginia, power company CEO Don Blankenship spent over $2 million of his own money supporting Republican candidates, most of whom lost. Blankenship, who sits on the U.S. Chamber's national board, has ties to a group called "West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse" and has a reputation for attacking trial lawyers and the civil justice system at every opportunity.
Incredulously, a day after the election, in a last ditch effort to convince opinion leaders that "tort reform" matters to voters, the U.S Chamber of Commerce Institute for Legal Reform released a survey arguing that swing voters were demanding restrictions on their rights to bring lawsuits. This, of course, was completely contrary to any actual election results. As TortsProfs Blog pointed out, " I didn't see a single exit poll that included litigation reform as a common response to open-ended questions: 'Asked which issues were extremely important to their vote, 42 percent said corruption and ethics; 40 percent, terrorism; 39 percent, the economy; 37 percent, Iraq; 36 percent, values; and 29 percent, illegal immigration.'" (CNN; see also Gallup's Top Ten, which does include healthcare and "fixing government itself," but neither of those items indicates "litigation reform")"
Last week's election was a referendum on a lot of things, and the voters made many statements with their ballots about what is important to them. The notion that the public cares about restricting their own rights to go to court is one of most over-hyped myths around today.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Robert Blanchard