Robert Neeld
Democrat for Congress
The Issues
The measures now before Congress don't address
the primary issues.
They are crafted by special interests to further polarize the
nation without taking on the real issue facing Americans; that
is, maintaining a process for fair and just compensation for injuries
caused by malpractice or by product defect.
Here's the better way to preserve our rights while we reform
the civil tort system: Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR).
The Bush/GOP proposals are just another example of political
gas-bagging. Under their proposal, Ford/Firestone would virtually
walk away from their liability for putting defective tires on
vehicles. And regarding medical malpractice, the Bush/GOP argument
that, by capping monetary damages won in court to hold down insurance
and medical expenses, is just plain wrong. This argument places
them squarely in political bed with the HMOs and the Big Insurance
Companies.
Bush and his GOP allies want to hamstring people who have suffered
serious and long-term harm through medical error or product liability.
This is wrong, and here's why.
These are precisely the people who need ADRs, approved by the
courts, more than ever to correct the wrongs to which they were
subjected.
Many people, especially trial lawyers in the area, have asked
me why I am looking into ADRs as a way to resolve some federal
medical malpractice or product liability cases in lieu of the
court process. The reason is simple: as your Representative in
Washington, I will do all that I can to end the bitterness that
has developed over the years between the legal, medical and business
communities on the matter of tort reform.
My thinking on this matter was influenced by a non-partisan report
on the topic of tort reform at the federal level, prepared by
Henry Cohen of the Congressional Research Service of the Library
of Congress.
Click
here to read Mr. Cohen's excellent examination
of all sides of this matter. |
