Started By
Message
locked post

LA State Rep Michael Melerine: Gov. Landry needs to sign House Bill 423 into law

Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:25 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27402 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:25 am
quote:

The Louisiana Legislature recently wrapped up its third session of the year. After two special sessions focusing on redistricting and crime, respectively, this regular session was touted as the forum to address Louisiana's worsening insurance crisis.

Insurance Commissioner Tim Temple proposed a comprehensive package of legal reforms to tackle this crisis, including two transparency bills (House bills 24 and 423) that I am proud to have authored. With a Republican Governor and Republican supermajorities in both chambers, many believed passing these civil justice reforms would be a slam dunk. Unfortunately, that has not been the case.

HB 24 would have required a claimant prove their alleged injuries were caused by the accident. After House passage by bipartisan vote of 75-24, HB 24 never made it out of the Senate Judiciary A Committee.

HB 423 also received broad bipartisan support in both chambers. Its fate is now in the hands of Gov. Landry
. This bill would revise our current collateral source rule and allow a jury to see both the "sticker price" of the medical bill and the amount that is actually paid by the insurance company. If you've ever looked at a medical bill, you know the amount paid by your health insurer is often much less than what they were billed.

Currently, a jury never knows what the insurance company actually paid, and claimants are allowed to recover more money than was actually paid for their medical treatment. The extra money the claimant recovers is not required to be paid to the medical provider, but instead goes to the attorney and the claimant as a windfall.

Both bills would have brought more transparency, fairness and balance to our civil justice system, allowing juries to make judgment decisions based on all available information. Louisiana's current laws contribute to the current insurance crisis negatively impacting each and every citizen on a daily basis.

A study released late year for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse found Louisiana residents experienced personal income losses totaling nearly $3 billion, with every single Louisiana citizen paying a hidden "tort tax" of nearly $1,000 last year.

Additionally, more than 40,500 jobs were lost and more than $230 million was drained from state coffers. Local governments are not immune either, losing more than $192 million in revenues last year attributable to lawsuit abuse.

As my constituents and others from across Louisiana have made clear, both consumers and businesses are being hit hard with the unsustainable costs of insurance.

These costs, coupled with the lack of availability, are forcing many small businesses to relocate to other states with more favorable civil justice climates. Some of these states, like Texas and Florida, have made significant reforms to their civil justice systems and are seeing the benefits.

Now is the time to address the root cause of the crisis. I commend my legislative colleagues and all those who have fought tirelessly for legal reform. I respectfully ask Governor Landry to put hardworking Louisianans first by signing HB 423 and other legal reform measures into law. We cannot wait – our future depends on it.


LINK
Posted by In The Know
City of St George, La
Member since Jan 2005
6328 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:29 am to
Will be interesting. Landry is a puppet for the Plaintiff bar and has disappointed the business community so far.
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465829 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:35 am to
quote:

A study released late year for Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse

Not helping the argument. Their studies are really bad, and often have nothing to do with the car-PI stuff.

quote:

HB 24 would have required a claimant prove their alleged injuries were caused by the accident.

Someone needs to explain this "reform" to me because this already exists

I don't really do PI anymore so I'm fine with revising the CSR. That's basically the last bullet in the chamber, though. There isn't much else they can do.

The fundamental issue with the auto-PI system in LA ultimately comes down to juries.
Posted by NIH
Member since Aug 2008
119786 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:37 am to
Yeah, I’m confused on this one
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27402 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:39 am to
quote:

Landry is a puppet for the Plaintiff bar and has disappointed the business community so far.


I wouldn't say he's so much disappointed the business community, but it's definitely been a mixed bag. More so than those business folks who supported him were hoping for.

He's supported and signed some good reform legislation that industry has supported; however, you have examples like this bill with worries that Gov. Landry won't sign. You have Alan Seabaugh's bill trying to get Louisiana's laws on legacy oil & gas operations in line with other states, that the 4th Floor kept tied up and buried until it was too late to get to the Senate floor during this past session. And you have to wonder if his administration didn't do the same to Melerine's other bill mentioned above that got derailed in Senate committee.
Posted by TrueTiger
Chicken's most valuable
Member since Sep 2004
79950 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 7:40 am to
quote:

see both the "sticker price" of the medical bill and the amount that is actually paid by the insurance company.


If the medical provider agreed to lower the charges then that is the actual market value of the service.

This seems fair.
Posted by CreoleTigerEsq
Noneya
Member since Nov 2007
861 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 8:22 am to
Michael Melerine is a lobbyist and special interest group's wet dream. He just served on the BESE board and was elected to either Seabaugh or Pressley's old seat in the House.

Guess who was elected to Michael Melerine's seat on the BESE board? His wife, Stacey Melerine.
Posted by BigBinBR
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2023
9241 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 8:40 am to
quote:

If the medical provider agreed to lower the charges then that is the actual market value of the service. This seems fair.

The scam is that an ambulance chaser will use the same doctor for all of their clients. The doctor doesn’t charge the clients they “charge” the attorney office. They charge exorbitant prices to drive the claim amount up.

The insurance company adjusts and settles the claim.

The attorney then pays the doctor their agreed price vs what they told the insurance company they charged. (e.g. presented bills for $1000 but the agreed rate for the attorney is $300). The attorney then pockets the additional $700. (The client doesn’t see this money because they were charged $1000 but the attorney agreed to front/cover the cost for their client).

When/if it goes to court the medical provider then presents these bill that are inflated. They can be used in court though because they show that the doctor changes everyone $1000 for a tissue massage. Juries don’t know the scam and think the price is the price.

A judgement comes down and now the attorney has a windfall. The attorney takes their cut off the top. Then uses a large percentage of the money for “expenses” and will on paper say that the amount was paid for the medical care when they actually had negotiated rates with the medical provider. The client gets a very small sum of money, but they are happy because it’s “free” money and the Attorney makes bank.



Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465829 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 8:44 am to
quote:

The scam is that an ambulance chaser will use the same doctor for all of their clients. The doctor doesn’t charge the clients they “charge” the attorney office. They charge exorbitant prices to drive the claim amount up.

That's not what this is about. There was already a LASC ruling on this, and the defense can get that agreed-upon discount.

The CSR is about insurance, not an agreement between the lawyer and HCP. The "bill" is $50k but the insurance paid out $8k after the contractual agreement between the insurance and HCP. PI attorney can enter the $50k as the bills for the jury to decide. This would allow the jury to consider the $8k actually paid for the damage calculation.

Posted by Indefatigable
Member since Jan 2019
35696 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 8:48 am to
quote:

HB 24 would have required a claimant prove their alleged injuries were caused by the accident.

It is quite simply astounding that this is not already the case.


Posted by BigBinBR
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2023
9241 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:11 am to
quote:

The CSR is about insurance, not an agreement between the lawyer and HCP. The "bill" is $50k but the insurance paid out $8k after the contractual agreement between the insurance and HCP. PI attorney can enter the $50k as the bills for the jury to decide. This would allow the jury to consider the $8k actually paid for the damage calculation.


Got it. I didn’t read the bill just the posted part of the article above.
Posted by AlxTgr
Kyre Banorg
Member since Oct 2003
86410 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:11 am to
quote:

Someone needs to explain this "reform" to me because this already exists

Housley
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
112449 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:14 am to
Housley presumption is horseshite. It was a damned workers compensation case (which is a non-tort system specifically tilted towards injured workers). It's also inconsistently applied and since it is an evidentiary determination it is subject to abuse of discretion standard of review.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 9:20 am
Posted by ragincajun03
Member since Nov 2007
27402 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:15 am to
Appreciate the further insight into some of this stuff from those who have apparently worked in that arena.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
112449 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:22 am to
quote:

It is quite simply astounding that this is not already the case.


They do still have to prove it (it is their burden). But under Housley, if they were in "good health" at the time if the injury and manifested symptoms immediately (or soon thereafter) and continue to manifest them, there is a rebuttable presumption it is caused by the accident.

The bolded part is ignored by judges and juries tend to ignore that the presumption is rebuttable.
Posted by udtiger
Over your left shoulder
Member since Nov 2006
112449 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:24 am to
quote:

Michael Melerine is a lobbyist and special interest group's wet dream
rebuttals.

So what?

It doesn't make those bills improper. Hopefully, even if 423 fails there will be enough outrage about this that it makes a comeback next session and passes with a vetoproof majority.
Posted by LSU Pappa
Louisiana
Member since Feb 2007
515 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:43 am to
Yeah, and this statement ignores the right of intervention and subrogation rights of the health insurer and/or provider as well as the automatic Medicare and Medicaid privileges
Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465829 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:49 am to
quote:

Yeah, and this statement ignores the right of intervention and subrogation rights of the health insurer and/or provider as well as the automatic Medicare and Medicaid privileges

Are any of these subro/lien amounts higher than the amount actually paid?
Posted by SammyTiger
Baton Rouge, LA
Member since Feb 2009
78219 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:52 am to
quote:

Someone needs to explain this "reform" to me because this already exists


getting rid of the Housely Presumption. Basically there is a legal presumption that if there is no prior history of an injury it should be assumed the accident caused it.

as to the collateral source rule, did anyone’s insurance premium drop when we changed the collateral source rule from 100% of the difference to 40?

but apparently we need to drop it to 20%. that should really save us money.




Posted by SlowFlowPro
With populists, expect populism
Member since Jan 2004
465829 posts
Posted on 6/12/24 at 9:53 am to
quote:

getting rid of the Housely Presumption

Yeah some posters clarified this. Really bad writing by the author of the article in OP, by not using the proper terminology (presumption).

first pageprev pagePage 1 of 4Next pagelast page

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on X, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookXInstagram