Court Grows Weary Of Deceitful Claims

The difficulty lies in the question of what the legislature can and should do to attempt limiting asbestos and silica lawsuits, and this question has been raised in the state affairs committee hearing. The answer may be found in a member of the house, a medical doctor who authored the senate bill that has been pinpointed by certain business interests that note the influx of unfounded claims in the court system. These lobbyists are alleging that too many people get taken advantage of personal injury attorneys, who tend to be greedy and self-promoting. They can't do this, of course, without the help of doctors, who falsify or exaggerate X rays. Businesses are out thousands as they work to defend themselves against claims that have absolutely no merit.

Plaintiff's attorneys counter with the assertion that legislation is unnecessary, due to alterations in the law which direct asbestos litigation to a central judicial clearinghouse. However, some trial attorneys have been able to find a forum for a new class of cases which focus on injury claims related to silica.

By simply requiring the claimant to show actual physical effects of the damage, not just an x ray, it should be easy to distinguish between the real and fake cases, according to business interests. The bill being proposed would alter the bar association's current proposal requiring the claimants to satisfy a specific medical assessment involving a course of X-rays, doctor exams and breathing tests prior to being permitted to proceed with the proposed lawsuit.

The legislation would incorporate a pair of safeguards for those who can claim asbestos exposure, but have yet to suffer physical manifestations. First, it removes the past limitations of two year. Anyone who could not meet the medical standard of proof at a particular point in time, but could do so at a later date would have the ability to begin a lawsuit at any point in the future. Next, the bill would keep insurance companies from denying people their coverage, regardless of whether or not their medical tests show that they have been exposed to asbestos.

Many of these important safeguards are there to protect people, but some believe these medical standards are simply too strict. This new proposal would mean keeping the medical standards at their current level, and allowing workers to sue, but also allowing for a judge to refer the claim elsewhere to discuss its validity ahead of time. Under this proposal, workers would still have the same rights as before but the court would be able to separate out those claims that are baseless or fraudulent.

Raising medical standards won't solve the problem if doctors are lying, according to the house member. The bottom line is doctors won't be stopped from lying to a higher standard because of this bill. The state must find a way to reduce claims that do nothing more than waste the court's time so that justice can be meted out more quickly to those who truly need the court's aid. Workers who have a legitimate claim have the right to their day in court as soon as they can. The house member's amendment applies to the house bill, but he believes his idea is deserving of senate consideration as well.