State Sen. Barrow Peacock as he sponsored an amendment to remove collateral source from the recently-passed tort reform initiative in Louisiana. His colleague, Sen. Sharon Hewitt, would later explain the move as the football equivalent of a flea flicker with the intent all along to add collateral source language back in when the bill went to conference committee, thus leaving staunch tort reform opponents to essentially have it crammed down their throats with no ability to oppose the language’s inclusion in the bill.
One Sound Off Louisiana subscriber, Craig Mills, who is arguably Louisiana’s strongest advocate for major adoption reform in Louisiana after he alleged he was a victim of an adoption scam, closely followed our features on tort reform in Louisiana. He was particularly intrigued by our feature on collateral source and the extreme degree that Louisiana’s trial lawyer cabal went to in order to keep that aspect of tort reform from becoming law in Louisiana.
The trial lawyers’ resolve to keep collateral source the way it is in Louisiana is best illustrated by Sen. Sharon Hewitt’s revelation that, as outlined on the preceding link, House Speaker Clay Schexnayder and Senate President Page Cortez felt they had little choice but to engage in the football equivalent of a flea flicker and remove the collateral source language from the bill with the full knowledge that they would add it back in conference committee with no time remaining for it to then be removed again. Senate President Cortez called upon Sen. Barrow Peacock to serve as halfback in that football flea flicker move as illustrated by the following seven-second video of Peacock removing the collateral source provision of the bill on Monday, June 22, 2020.
State Sen. Barrow Peacock removes “collateral source” from HB-57 on the Senate Floor on Monday, June 22, 2020.
Don’t let the words “collateral source” sound complicated because it’s not. The important thing to remember is that Louisiana’s present collateral source provisions essentially legalize the deployment of what amounts to otherwise-fraudulent collections entailing hospital billings for traffic accidents. Accident victims in Louisiana have, for years, through the Louisiana trial lawyer cabal, been compensated for accidents based on hugely-inflated hospital billings vis-a-vis the amount actually paid to the hospital by a health insurance company, which is often a tiny fraction of the amount billed. The lawyer and the accident victim simply pocket the difference, which is then passed on to us in the form of outrageous automobile liability insurance premiums! That makes it about as simple as we know how to make it.
Texas too had a similar system in place until that state enacted tort reform years ago. In at least one instance, Mills, who has extensive experience with hospital billings as a result of his own vocation, has provided us with recent news of a proposed class action lawsuit in Texas wherein alleged straight-up fraud entailing allegedly-inflated hospital billings has been deployed to bilk auto insurance companies and potentially the victims themselves out of the difference between the allegedly-inflated hospital billings and the amount companies like Blue Cross and Blue Shield would approve and pay. Basically the suit alleges that the billing partner and hospital simply told victims it was mandatory to bypass the health insurer altogether or else the claim would not be paid!
While that angle offers a different twist in that it’s the hospital and a billing partner which are seeking to benefit, there’s nothing to keep a similar scheme from being deployed wherein an added “incentive” is introduced to the victim (naturally, explained away so as to appear innocuous, of course) to simply go along with the whole arrangement so that everyone ends up with a piece of the “fraud pie,” all to the detriment to the auto insurance company. From the preceding feature:
A proposed class action lawsuit pending in a Texarkana federal court accuses the company that operates Wadley hospital and a medical billing company of violating state law and engaging in fraud in auto accident injury cases.
“However, during the screening process, defendants had in place their unlawful system, which upon identifying plaintiff as having been involved in an automobile accident, listed defendant MRA as the ‘Primary insurance.’ Further, defendants’ unlawful system omitted plaintiff’s health insurance plan as the source for payment, listed her as ‘Self Pay,’ and further coded her financial status as ‘Legal,'” the complaint states.
After being treated, Williams’ bill came to $9,750.79. The complaint alleges that amount is higher than the total of what Blue Cross would have been required to pay through its contract with the hospital plus the amount Williams would have been responsible for out-of-pocket in co-pay and deductible. The complaint alleges MRA and Steward are guilty of charging a higher price for services than allowed by Williams’ coverage under her Blue Cross policy.
The complaint alleges that after Williams’ lawyer sent a letter to MRA in February 2019 directing them to bill her health insurance, MRA responded by claiming the medical coverage “will not process” if services were rendered subsequent to an auto accident. The complaint alleges the response amounts to a full admission of the “deceptive scheme” of falsely declaring health insurance will not cover auto accident injuries, intentionally not billing health insurance plans and seeking payment of an inflated bill from the patient or a third party.
The complaint asks the court to declare the billing practices violate Texas law, for an injunction halting the conduct, for restitution of monies collected in violation of Texas law, for damages and certification as a class action.
So, once Louisiana’s tort reform collateral source provision kicks in on January 1, 2021, we’ll all have to keep a close eye out for situations similar to the preceding Texas matter, lest auto liability insurance rates continue to be through the proverbial roof in Louisiana.
We express sincere appreciation to Mills for his tip on this development in Texas, and we look forward to updating subscribers on his ongoing efforts to reform the adoption industry in Louisiana to help ensure other prospective adoptive couples are not scammed in a manner similar to the way in which he alleges that he was scammed.
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops). Supply your email address within the subscribe box. You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.
Louisiana Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera, who was recently called upon by Gov. Edwards to attest to the relative accuracy of the Louisiana Department of Health’s COVID numbers in light of an increasing number of local law enforcement and emergency-preparedness officials who are openly challenging the accuracy of those numbers.
Over the last month or so, a growing number of local law enforcement and emergency preparedness officials have openly questioned the accuracy of the COVID numbers being released by Gov. John Bel Edwards’ Office through the Louisiana Department of Health. The number of local folk questioning the numbers’ accuracy became large enough that The Advocate chose to rely upon Louisiana Legislative Auditor Daryl Purpera to counter their claims.
Based upon the following 71-second recording of former Louisiana Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOSHEP) Deputy Director Mark DeBosier’s commentary regarding his ability to get Purpera and his office to “put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes…..and we make sure there’s no fingerprints on it,” we openly question just how much faith the public should place in Purpera’s on-the-fly attestation of Gov. Edwards’ COVID numbers:
Former GOHSEP Deputy Director Mark DeBosier brags of his ability to get Purpera and the Legislative Auditor’s Office to “put their fingers in their ears, close their eyes…..and we make sure there’s no fingerprints on it.”
DeBosier certainly doesn’t provide very compelling evidence of the Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s independence. We repeatedly offered Purpera the opportunity to appear on camera to defend his office regarding DeBosier’s commentary, and he declined every invitation we extended. Furthermore, one of Sound Off Louisiana’s subscribers with integral knowledge of Purpera’s operations who insisted upon maintaining anonymity made the following comment regarding DeBosier’s statements on the audio file above):
The LLA and his staff do thorough work and they rarely leave a stone uncovered. They also produce accurate reports and their findings are spot on. Problem arises is that their initial reports are released only to a select few for review and “editing”. It is at this point that politics come into play and the findings contained within these reports are highly edited and the majority of the unfavorable findings, which are the one that truly point out the corruption, are edited out of the reports prior to their release to the public. Just another way to deprive taxpayers of any truly independent oversight.
For those who want detail entailing what the issue at hand was when DeBosier made his commentary, feel free to CLICK HERE. For those who chose to read the material at the preceding link and for our long-time subscribers, many will recall that FEMA contracted monitor Corey delaHoussaye sued the Louisiana State Office of Inspector General (OIG).
The latest on that litigation is that OIG filed (under seal) a Motion for Summary Judgment, and oral arguments for that Motion are scheduled for Tuesday, September 29, 2020. We’ll be there to report on the outcome of the OIG’s motion, and we’ll provide a feature alerting our subscribers of its outcome.
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops). Supply your email address within the subscribe box. You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.
Former U. S. Senator and 2015 Louisiana Gubernatorial candidate David Vitter.
In our first installment of the tort reform measure passed by the Louisiana Legislature in the most-recent special session (which focused on collateral source), we referenced that, in installment two, we’d “mention someone’s name who hasn’t even been referenced during all of the current tort reform efforts.” That individual is former U. S. Sen. and 2015 gubernatorial candidate David Vitter.
Then-Senator Vitter was very transparent (likely to such a fault that it cost him the gubernatorial election in 2015) entailing the direction he intended to take Louisiana, even going to the extent of publishing a “Together Louisiana Strong” brochure outlining many of his initiatives as part of his campaign.
Though the brochure didn’t explicitly outline his plans to implement tort reform if elected Governor, he made no secret of his plans to do so. One key element of his platform was his emphatic stand that Louisiana’s jury trial threshold (i.e. the level of alleged damages above which a defendant has a right to demand a trial by a jury of his peers) should be like that of 36 other states: zero!
Let’s take just three short minutes to watch then Sen. Vitter’s emphatic statements about the jury trial threshold and the propensity of Louisiana lawyers to engage in “judge shopping and venue shopping.”
During 2015 Louisiana Governor’s Race, candidate David Vitter stresses the adverse impacts of Louisiana’s $50,000 jury trial threshold and Louisiana trial lawyers’ propensity to engage in “judge shopping and venue shopping.”
The recent tort reform initiative passed by the Louisiana Legislature lowered the jury trial threshold in Louisiana from $50,000 to $10,000 effective for auto accidents transpiring on or after January 1, 2021. Many anti-tort-reform folk indicated that Louisiana could expect to see a drastic increase in jury trials as a result of that lowering; however, in the preceding video, Vitter stated the exact opposite to be the case. He emphasized that the high jury trial threshold is what “floods” the courts with lawsuits in the first place, and we wholeheartedly agree with his assessment!
Vitter further argued that, once the plaintiff attorney gets the judge he or she desires, the defendant (and, importantly, his insurance carrier) are then essentially held hostage at the mercy of that judge and the plaintiff attorney for up to $50,000 to make the case go away.
Vitter could not have possibly been more accurate in his statement and, just as we used an illustrative example for collateral source, we want to use a real-life example of precisely what Vitter references in the above video.
Sound Off Louisiana founder Robert Burns and his mom have been insured by State Farm Insurance for the past 33 years. During that time, only one claim has ever been filed by anyone entailing an accident by Burns or his mom (it happened to be his mom), and we’re about to succinctly state the facts of that one claim and the resulting settlement made to the plaintiff once Burns’ mom was sued by a member of the trial-attorney cabal Vitter fought against so tenaciously:
Burns and his mom have lived at an apartment complex for which the speed limit is 5 MPH. One morning, Burns’ mother was backing out of her assigned parking space that sits between two main driveways of the complex. As fate would have it, the garbage collector had a flat tire as they were uploading dumpsters, and so they called for a replacement tire to be delivered and installed.
When the driver for the company who was used to install a replacement tire arrived, he quickly realized that he was on the wrong side of the apartment complex and, rather than going around the complex, decided to simply barrel directly down the path of the parked cars (intended for resident use only) at a speed vastly in excess of 5 MPH. Though Burns’ mom had just barely moved from her parking spot going in reverse (deemed automatically at fault in Louisiana irrespective of how irresponsible the other driver may be), he clipped the middle portion of her rear bumper and ripped half of it off the car. Here’s a photo:
Bumper of Burns’ mom’s car after being half ripped off by driver of tire-repair company in a rush to get to the other side of the apartment complex to replace a flat tire on a garbage truck.
To illustrate the minimal (i.e. nonexistent) impact on the tire-replacement vehicle, let’s also provide that photo:
Barely-detectable impact of tire-replacement vehicle.
Accordingly, Burns’ mother soon found herself on the receiving end of a lawsuit filed by James. Burns was in contact with the State Farm adjuster throughout the process and, upon his mother being sued, he called the adjuster to inform her of that fact. She immediately asked to which judge the case had been assigned. No sooner did Burns get the words “Janice Clark” out of his mouth did the State Farm adjuster respond with, “Oh, God!”
In light of the foregoing, State Farm decided it was best to simply settle the lawsuit. The settlement amount? $48,500 (incredibly close to that magical $50,000 jury trial threshold, no?). Let’s take a look at the settlement letter Burns’ mother was sent by State Farm, shall we?
$48,500 settlement letter from State Farm attorney.
Now, we can rest assured that the “$30,000 in medical bills” referenced in the above letter is where the collateral source benefit kicks in. God only knows how much less any actual payment to the doctor for James’ “soft tissue injuries” were. Moreover, notice that the attorney representing State Farm specifically references the fact that the case was assigned to 19th JDC Judge Janice Clark, who recently unsuccessfully sued in Louisiana District Court to remain on the bench at 73 years of age notwithstanding that Louisiana’s Constitution requires judges to retire at the end of their terms after they reach the age of 70. She has not ruled out filing a separate action in Federal Court.
The above example demonstrates exactly what Vitter was referencing! Had State Farm had the right to insist upon a jury trial, this case would have been exposed for the sham that it and so many others like it are! With a jury trial threshold of $10,000 rather than $50,000 (especially when combined with the new collateral source statutes), no doubt James would not have likely been practically shoved into a doctor’s office to rack up likely vastly-inflated medical billings (the actual payments of which were likely a small fraction of the $30,000 billed), and the best he and his attorney could maybe have hoped for was $8,500 rather than $48,500. Why? Because State Farm would have simply insisted upon a trial by jury rather than allowing Judge Janice Clark to be the sole determinant of how much James could obtain from this lottery ticket accident.
Now, if anyone believes the trial lawyers in Louisiana were going to just turn loose of the money train derived from the kinds of litigation abuses depicted above, let’s take just one minute to again let Vitter state in his own words just how diligently those trial lawyers fought him on his proposed tort reform:
Vitter outlines the costs to Louisiana families of Louisiana’s judicial hell hole legal environment and the extent to which the trial lawyer cabal in Louisiana went to in order to ensure his defeat in the 2015 election for Governor of Louisiana.
Now, the trial lawyers would never be so stupid as to try to counter Vitter’s statements by touting Louisiana’s legal system because they knew (and know) as reflected by this link we provided above that Louisiana citizens, by a huge majority, have long supported meaningful tort reform to rein in Louisiana’s out-of-control legal environment. From the preceding link:
• Approximately 2/3 of Louisiana voters believe there
are too many lawsuits in our state.
• More than 8 out of 10 Louisiana voters believe
lawsuit reform is needed.
• Roughly 70% believe lawsuit abuse costs jobs and
hurts our state’s economy.
• 85% believe that personal injury lawyer ads
encourage people to sue; and
• 78% believe that lawyers take advantage of disasters to file frivolous lawsuits
So, what were trial lawyers and then-candidate John Bel Edwards left with to use to oppose Vitter’s initiatives given that the vast majority of Louisiana citizens agree with his positions regarding tort reform? Well, we all know the answer to that question.
Then-candidate Edwards was also smart enough to know that Louisiana citizens strongly supported (and support) meaningful tort reform. Accordingly, his advisors insisted that he pass on the lawsuit abuse forum at which Vitter outlines his initiatives above. Nevertheless, we at Sound Off Louisiana did our best to force Edwards to provide his stance on tort reform, especially the jury trial threshold. Let’s take just another minute to see just what Edwards stated his stand on the jury trial threshold was (and is):
Then-candidate John Bel Edwards, during a 2015 debate for Governor of Louisiana, expressed his rationale for opposing the lowering of the $50,000 jury trial threshold in Louisiana.
Now, don’t anyone for a moment believe that John Bel Edwards believes a word he is saying about electing “conservative judges” in Louisiana. He is an attorney, and he knows how the system works. State Judges are elected from for each district (e.g. 19th JDC) from geographic areas that are represented by very conservative judges AND by very liberal judges. When a lawsuit is filed within that district, a plaintiff has a supposedly-random (some have questioned if it’s truly “random”) chance of drawing a conservative judge vs. a liberal judge. They are supposed to be allocated sequentially as suits are filed.
Once the attorney knows which judge has been drawn, he or she basically knows (as does the defense attorney and defendant) whether the plaintiff is sitting in high cotton (e.g. the “Oh, God” commentary of the State Farm adjuster above upon learning that the assigned judge was Janice Clark) or whether in fact it is the plaintiff who recognizes a need to go into immediate “let’s settle fast for whatever small amount the defendant’s insurer will offer” mode (e.g. if former 19th JDC Judge Michael Caldwell had been drawn).
On the very day Governor Edwards was being inaugurated in 2016, Sound Off Louisiana‘s Robert Burns had arrived way too early for the same function entailing Attorney General Jeff Landry. Accordingly, in order to kill some time, he decided to just drop in and observe a few civil arguments in 19th JDC. He happened to visit Judge Don Johnson’s courtroom, and he was stunned to hear arguments to transfer a case from St. Tammany to Baton Rouge notwithstanding the fact that the defendant (a retirement community) was located in St. Tammany Parish, the plaintiff resided in St. Tammany Parish, and the case had already been filed in St. Tammany Parish.
What was the plaintiff’s argument for transferring the case? The out-of-state insurance company was being sued and, since its agent for being served was listed as being located in East Baton Rouge, that attorney felt that gave grounds to transfer the case to 19th JDC in East Baton Rouge. Naturally, the real reason was that St. Tammany is a highly-conservative parish in Louisiana, and obviously one of those “conservative judges” Edwards references in the above video had been drawn, so the plaintiff attorney had to find some way to transfer the case to a jurisdiction with a much higher probability of a favorable outcome for him than in St. Tammany Parish!
That is the type of “venue shopping” Vitter references, and it was incredible that such an argument was being posed in such close proximity to where a new Governor from Amite, Louisiana was soon to be sworn into office after having gone on record as supporting the very system that thrives on such garbage tactics.
Now, the defense attorney posed the counter argument (who knows, maybe he’ll read this post and remember it) that the plaintiff’s argument was utterly absurd on its face and that, if the court granted the transfer, it would result in massively-larger costs to both parties and that, if that’s all that is required to transfer a case (i.e. that an insurance company’s agent for process service is located in Baton Rouge), then virtually every case in which an insurance company is named as defendant would have to be tried in Baton Rouge! He also stated (in a semi-humorous tone), “Your Honor, I don’t know why opposing counsel wants this case tried in this venue so badly. Perhaps he likes you.” Judge Johnson merely waved his hand with a laugh, after which he said, “Look you guys are going to have to get this resolved at the Legislature, but I can tell you this: We are already jammed to the max on our dockets. I agree with defense counsel that moving this case to 19th JDC would not promote judicial efficiency, and I’m therefore going to deny the motion.” The case was thereafter settled in St. Tammany Parish, and we’re willing to bet it was for an amount substantially less than $50,000!
Notice in the above video that Edwards references that it “would not be efficient” to have 12 people miss a day of work for an $8,000 “fender bender.” Well, and, yes, we’re being sarcastic here, perhaps Gov. Edwards “saw the light” so to speak in that he signed a bill permitting 12 jurors to decide a case with only an additional $2,000 in alleged damages beyond the amount he stated would be “inefficient.”
No, the reality is that Gov. Edwards who, were he properly motivated by the welfare of Louisiana citizens and their will, would have supported tort reform long ago, has been in the back pocket of trial lawyers from even before he took office as a mere candidate in 2015. The “Damascus Road Experience” that Edwards encountered was that, had he not signed the bill, he could forget ever getting a single initiative he supported during his second term through the Republican-controlled Legislature! In fact, Moon Griffon has stated that he told at least one legislator, “I’m going to sign this thing because I don’t want this to be all we talk about the next 3 1/2 years!” If he in fact did say that, then let’s give him credit for being astute. He was spot-on in that this is one issue for which the people of Louisiana were simply not going to let go. Edwards obviously sized up as much and knew the only way to “move on” was for him to sign the bill. He knew that to be the case irrespective of how much it may alienate the trial-lawyer cabal which spent millions getting him elected over Vitter and thereafter fending off Rispone last year (though Rispone and his crew of out-of-state charlatan campaign managers did virtually all of the heavy lifting for Edwards).
We have no doubt that Vitter is smiling and content with the fact that the corrupt, gravy-train, downright-theft racket that the attorney cabal has been operating in Louisiana has been and will continue to be completely collapsing under its own weight. Further, in the end, even without Vitter’s election, the voters of Louisiana have been able to take the first step toward crushing it to pieces. Look for the next steps once a new governor is sworn into office in early 2024 to include: A) expanding the prescription period from one year to two years, B) eliminating the ability for the defendant’s insurer to be named as another defendant (i.e. direct action), C) meaningful legislation to restrict venue shopping, and D) further reducing the jury trial threshold to ZERO! Considering the fact that John Bel Edwards resides in the Governor’s Mansion, the current tort reform initiative can only be viewed as a VERY resounding victory for the people of the state of Louisiana!
If you would like to be added to our Sound Off Louisiana email list to be notified of future posts, simply go to our home page and scroll to the bottom (mobile devices) or to the top of the right-hand column (desktops). Supply your email address within the subscribe box. You’ll then receive an automated email from Word Press, and all you have to do is click on the blue “confirm follow” bar contained within that email, and you’ll begin receiving great posts such as the preceding one above.
