Three weeks ago, CO-LAW alerted readers to possible shenanigans by trial lawyers who were apparently playing games with an otherwise uncontroversial bill that allowed hospitals to improve patient safety by allowing doctors to review and candidly comment on the work of other doctors.

More than a month ago, House Bill 1300 passed the Colorado House of Representatives 65 to 0.  Since then the bill has been held up in Senate Health and Human Services committee.  In fact, it hasn’t even been granted a hearing!

Why?  Because trial lawyers believe they can use this bill to overturn a Colorado Court of Appeals decision that said they can’t frivolously sue hospitals for medical malpractice.  (Because doctors practice medicine and hospitals do not, Colorado law says that only doctors can be sued for medical malpractice and that hospitals cannot.)

HB 1300 re-authorizes the Colorado Professional Review Act which protects the confidentiality of doctor panels which review the conduct of other doctors.  Without confidentiality and immunity from lawsuit, doctors would be less likely to candidly evaluate the conduct of other doctors — and patient safety could be compromised.

So, what’s in it for trial lawyers?  By reversing the court’s unanimous ruling, trial lawyers could sue both doctors and hospitals in every malpractice case.

It’s all about two words: DEEP POCKETS!

Colorado Civil Justice League urges senators to reject trial lawyer greed and pass HB 1300 before the legislature adjourns in less than two weeks.

Senate Bill 153, labeled “the most blatantly anti-business bill” of the 2012 legislative session, died in the Senate Judiciary Committee last week when its sponsor, Senate Majority Leader John Morse (D-Colorado Springs) asked that it be killed.

More than 60 businesses, trade associations and legal groups joined forces with Colorado Civil Justice League by on record opposing the bill after its introduction, complaining that the legislation would invite frivolous lawsuits and unwisely expose trade secrets and proprietary information.

Worse still, the bill would have put business defendants at a tremendous disadvantage by requiring a judge to determine whether a product presented a “public hazard” long before trial, allowing plaintiffs attorneys to later prejudice juries by telling them that the product had already been declared a “public hazard.”

Even more absurdly, the bill’s definition of public hazard was so all-encompassing as to allow attorneys to plausibly argue that items as innocuous as a toothpick or Q-Tip or as ordinary as a automobile.

Morse explained his decision to have the bill “postponed indefinitely” – Capitol jargon meaning “killed” – not by addressing the merits of the bill but by conceding that it would have been too costly to the state Judicial Department.

Colorado Civil Justice League is grateful for the support of consumers and our allies in the business community who stood against SB 153.

Until recently, no one paid much attention to House Bill 1300 (by Rep. Bob Gardner, R-Colorado Springs, and Sen. Irene Aguilar, D-Denver), a rather routine bill which continues the way that doctors evaluate quality of patient care and professional conduct by other doctors.

Medical professional review enhances patient safety by helping doctors avoid medical errors and improve practices.

Like 48 other states, Colorado’s medical review process is confidential to ensure that evaluators can candidly discuss potential problems with doctors who are being reviewed.

That caught the eye of Colorado trial lawyers, who want to be able to dig through medical review records when they file a lawsuit against a doctor.

After lying in the weeds while HB 1300 passed the House on a unanimous vote, trial lawyers now have stalled the bill in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. Read more

Colorado House of Representatives could vote as early as today on House Bill 1305 which would replace the state’s inflated and outdated lawsuit interest rate with one that more closely reflects real-world market conditions.

When the bill passed Friday’s preliminary vote, the debate unfortunately seemed to break along party lines with Republicans voting for and Democrats voting against linking interest rates to market conditions.

However, there’s no good reason that this common sense change shouldn’t receive bipartisan support.

Colorado law currently requires that interest on damages in a lawsuit be calculated at 9% per year.  That’s as much as 10 times greater than standard interest rates available today to consumers.

Not even the I.R.S. charges 9% interest!

That means contingent-fee lawyers have every incentive to prolong lawsuits because neither they nor their clients can reap 9% interest elsewhere. Read more

For years, plaintiffs lawyers have argued that Colorado’s legal limits on non-economic damages should be adjusted for inflation.  In 2007, they got their wish.

Never mind how something that’s unquantifiable – like “emotional stress” and “pain and suffering” – is subject to inflation.  The bottom line is that personal injury lawyers sought to increase their customers’ claims.  Is it coincidence that doing so allowed contingent-fee lawyers to take home a bigger payday?

Decide for yourself.

Well, since we’re linking state policy to economic reality, then it must make sense to do that where there’s a more obvious reason for doing so: interest rates.

When someone has been harmed by the wrongdoing of another, they’re rightfully entitled to compensation for damages, plus interest to reflect the lost value of that money since the injury occurred.

However, an outdated state law requires an inflated interest rate of 9%.  Over the past four years, interest rates have averaged roughly 1.5% and inflation has averaged slightly more than 2%.  As documented here, that can mean an interest windfall of $3,500 in just four years on a $10,000 judgment – 35% more than real-world interest rates. Read more