134 posts categorized "In The News"

December 03, 2007

The price of computer illiteracy? Only $1,149! Oh, that and your reputation.

Scott Bloch is an idiot.   

Mr. Bloch had his computer's hard disk completely cleansed using a "seven-level" wipe: a thorough scrubbing that conforms to Defense Department data-security standards. The process makes it nearly impossible for forensics experts to restore the data later. He also directed Geeks on Call to erase laptop computers that had been used by his two top political deputies, who had recently left the agency.

Geeks on Call visited Mr. Bloch's government office in a nondescript office building on M Street in Washington twice, on Dec. 18 and Dec. 21, 2006, according to a receipt reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. The total charge was $1,149, paid with an agency credit card, the receipt shows. The receipt says a seven-level wipe was performed but doesn't mention any computer virus.

Jeff Phelps, who runs Washington's Geeks on Call franchise, declined to talk about specific clients, but said calls placed directly by government officials are unusual. He also said erasing a drive is an unusual virus treatment. "We don't do a seven-level wipe for a virus," he said.

Head of Rove Inquiry in Hot Seat Himself - WSJ.com

$1,149 to wipe a hard drive?  That's enough money to buy 15 hard drives.  If I were in his shoes, I'd have simply destroyed the hard drive with a big fat hammer and bought a clean replacement.  Even if other services were involved, how wise is it to outsource the destruction of evidence... and then allow the service to be documented on a receipt that's paid for with a credit card?

Scott will likely be even happier to learn that programs to do what he paid $1,149 to do are available for free on the Internet, and require very little computer savvy.  Had Scott had the requisite amount of computer savvy, he could have wiped his own drive and then had the Geeks on Call reinstall all of his software.

Yet another thought on defensive medicine

I saw an article today about a purported malpractice crisis in Massachusetts, and wanted to comment on this quote:

Even more expensive is the cost of “defensive medicine.” Faced with the possibility of huge malpractice judgments, physicians may feel it necessary to order tests, treatments and procedures that are of negligible medical use — knowing that, if they are not ordered, the omission is apt to figure in some future lawsuit.

Worcester Telegram & Gazette News

The omission of a test is only apt to figure into a malpractice lawsuit if there might have been a positive outcome for the patient had the test been run.  To take an extreme example: no matter what symptoms I displayed, no doctor would ever order a pregnancy test.  Doctors only order tests that the results of which might be necessary to treat the patient.  And who do these tests hurt?  Not the doctor, because they get paid for them.  Not the patient, as these "unnecessary" tests sometimes result in a life being saved. 

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: I *want* my physician to be defensive.  If there's something wrong with me, I want him to leave no stone unturned in finding and curing my illness.  I sure as hell don't want a doctor to decide that there's only a small chance I have cancer and end up having to lose a testicle because the doctor guessed wrong.  Do you?

November 28, 2007

The Texas Supreme Court is a "safety net" for corporate defendants

I'm sorry I never met Bob Kraft when I lived in Texas.  His blog, P.I.S.S.D., is chock full of humor, sarcasm, and critical examination of the civil justice system.  In other words, he's a man after my own heart.  Today, he wrote about a new article in the Dallas Morning News that points out how pro-business, anti-consumer the Texas Supreme Court is.  Here's an excerpt from the article:

The incident has added fire to a decade-long debate over whether Texas' highest court favors big business in lawsuits.

The perception is bolstered by data showing that the court's rulings increasingly favor defendants in lawsuits – upward of 87 percent of the time, one study said...

"I'd say that right now Texas is on the forefront of the business-friendly legal environment," said Rogge Dunn at Clouse Dunn Khoshbin LLP in Dallas, who handles some workers' compensation cases. "If you're an insurer here or a large company getting sued, you've got the Supreme Court as your safety net."

P.I.S.S.D. -- Personal Injury, Social Security Disability. Dallas Texas Lawyers: Link of the Day - Texas Supreme Court Favors Big Business

Visit P.I.S.S.D. if you want the link to the full article.

The Rather Effect?

Law and More suggests that Dan Rather's lawsuit against CBS is going to be the next poster-child for tort reform.  I'm doubtful for a few reasons.  But first, the relevant excerpts:

On the surface, Dan Rather's lawsuit against former employer, reports Joe Hagan in December 3rd NEW YORK Magazine, "is a mundane contract dispute over whether he received the airtime he was promised in his final year on CBS."  But to Rather it's a morality play of how evil attempted to destroy his good name, professionally and personally.  In this drama he is convinced good will win out.

But what could win is the common sense realization that it's reckless to try to right individual wrongs with monster lawsuits.  Tort reform could take a quantum and unanticipated leap. 

After all, this lawsuit is big.  Rather is asking $70 million.  He is suing CBS, its former parent Viacom, the chairman of Viacom Sumner Redstone, CBS head Leslie Moonves, and former CBS president of news Andrew Heyward.  And like everything else Rather it is filled with noise and hyperbole.  Conspiracy is everywhere. Likewise for corruption.

Law And More: The Rather Effect in Tort Reform

First, why is it reckless to try and right individual wrongs with the civil justice system?  The alternative is to return to feuds and private wars between individual citizens and between rival corporations.  Would the world really be a better place if Dan Rather decided to take a flamethrower to CBS headquarters?

Second, most "tort reform" measures will have little or no effect on contract disputes.  For example:

  • To begin with, contract cases are not torts.
  • Many contracts have "loser pays" provisions built in to them.
  • Punitive damages are not available in contract cases. (Absent an additional tort.)
  • Liquidated damages clauses often take the place of noneconomic damages.
  • Damage caps won't apply to economic damages.
  • Contract cases involve questions of law more often than questions of fact, thus there is a greater likelihood these will be resolved by summary judgment than jury trial.  And contract cases don't turn into "battle of the expert witness" cases very often, either.

Is Dan Rather entitled to $70 million?  I have no idea, and no overall opinion of Dan Rather.  But I do know he's entitled to use the court system to settle a contractual dispute with CBS.  And I also know there's nothing wrong with using the justice system to right a wrong; that's what it's for.

November 27, 2007

Nope, no malpractice crisis here. Unless you count this sort of thing:

Third time's a charm?

PROVIDENCE, R.I. - Rhode Island Hospital has been fined $50,000 and reprimanded by the state Department of Health after its third instance this year of a doctor performing brain surgery in the wrong side of a patient's head.

Hospital makes 3rd brain surgery mistake - Yahoo! News

Too bad doctors and insurers are more concerned with preventing malpractice lawsuits than malpractice...

November 24, 2007

Interesting case dealing with Medicaid fraud

I feel absolutely no sympathy for people who defraud Medicaid.  Defrauding Medicaid is a nice way of saying "robbing the taxpayers."  Here's an interesting case about a man who was such a dumbass that he went to court, admitted he defrauded Medicaid, and asked the court for help:

JACKSON, Miss. (AP) - The state Court of Appeals has ruled that a Jones County man who tried to hide his mineral interest in some land from Medicaid officials has no legal right to reclaim them later.

Rickey Ellzey sued in chancery court for the return of mineral interests which he had transferred to Sherry James in an effort to conceal his assets from Medicaid....

At trial, Ellzey and James both testified that the purpose of the transfer was to conceal Ellzey's royalty income from Medicaid.

WLOX-TV - The News for South Mississippi: Appeals Court rules Jones Co. man can't get mineral rights back

I'd sure like to think there will be some sort of criminal charges brought against these two scumbags. 

November 21, 2007

Another argument against damage caps - sick, twisted adults tease a teenage girl into suicide:

Can someone tell me why these people shouldn't lose everything they own in a civil lawsuit?

She told the Meiers that Josh Evans was created by adults, a family on their block. These adults, she told the Meiers, were the parents of Megan's former girlfriend, the one with whom she had a falling out. These were the people who'd asked the Meiers to store their foosball table.

St. Charles Journal - News -

Sad and disgusting.

Why fix the problem when we can outsource the danger?

The beauty of the free market at work:

GUIYU, China — The air smells acrid from the squat gas burners that sit outside homes, melting wires to recover copper and cooking computer motherboards to release gold. Migrant workers in filthy clothes smash picture tubes by hand to recover glass and electronic parts, releasing as much as 6.5 pounds of lead dust. ...

This ugly business is driven by pure economics. For the West, where safety rules drive up the cost of disposal, it's as much as 10 times cheaper to export the waste to developing countries. In China, poor migrants from the countryside willingly endure the health risks to earn a few yuan, exploited by profit-hungry entrepreneurs.

China not fighting off e-waste nightmare | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

The tragedy will be when some entrepreneurial plaintiff's lawyer attempts to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the peasants.

The subrogation trap: Another argument against damage caps

The Wall Street Journal has the sickening story of a brain-damaged woman who is losing all of her settlement to none other than Wal-Mart:

JACKSON, Mo. -- A collision with a semi-trailer truck seven years ago left 52-year-old Deborah Shank permanently brain-damaged and in a wheelchair. Her husband, Jim, and three sons found a small source of solace: a $700,000 accident settlement from the trucking company involved. After legal fees and other expenses, the remaining $417,000 was put in a special trust. It was to be used for Mrs. Shank's care.

Instead, all of it is now slated to go to Mrs. Shank's former employer, Wal-Mart Stores Inc.

Two years ago, the retail giant's health plan sued the Shanks for the $470,000 it had spent on her medical care. A federal judge ruled last year in Wal-Mart's favor, backed by an appeals-court decision in August. Now, her family has to rely on Medicaid and Mrs. Shank's social-security payments to keep up her round-the-clock care.

Accident Victims Face Grab for Legal Winnings - WSJ.com

Wal-Mart absolutely has a right of subrogation; I'm not criticizing them for pursuing it.  There are a few problems here.  First, the settlement is way too low for these injuries.  If all of the $417,000 was slated to be used for future medical care, then the settlement didn't include anything for noneconomic damages.  That's a very crappy settlement, unless liability was very questionable.  One way to prevent an injustice like this is for victims to receive a noneconomic damages settlement in excess of their economic damages settlement.  Otherwise, the victim can literally end up with nothing while insurers get it all.

Second, we now have a case of an insurer being reimbursed at the expense of taxpayers.  Again, I have no issue with subrogation, but isn't there something wrong with allowing subrogation to proceed when it means the taxpayers will have to step up?

Forget everything about "runaway juries" and "frivolous lawsuits."  This case epitomizes the real problems with the civil justice system today: Individuals aren't properly compensated, major corporations have all the power, and quite often, taxpayers are called upon to pay for the negligence of others.

November 15, 2007

I Always said Warren Buffett was smart...

I might feel differently about this issue if I was in line for a ten-figure inheritance, but I agree with Buffett:

"Dynastic wealth, the enemy of a meritocracy, is on the rise. Equality of opportunity has been on the decline," Buffett said. "A progressive and meaningful estate tax is needed to curb the movement of a democracy toward plutocracy." Buffett backs estate tax, decries wealth gap | U.S. | Reuters

If Buffett were to say we've already edged our way into a plutocracy, I wouldn't disagree too vehemently.