- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: LA State Rep Michael Melerine: Gov. Landry needs to sign House Bill 423 into law
Posted on 6/12/24 at 12:26 pm to Donnie 9 inch
Posted on 6/12/24 at 12:26 pm to Donnie 9 inch
quote:
The Melerine’s are good people. If you ever get the chance to meet them you will see that they actually care about this state and especially the kids in this state. If a lobbyist or special interest wants to help them fix the worst education system in the nation then so be it. All hands on deck to fix that problem IMO.
It just so happens that Michael Melerine is also an attorney at Alan Seabaugh's law firm (where Seabaugh is a partner). One of his practice areas is insurance defense, and the firm has about 11 insurance companies as clients.
LINK
I wonder why a person who practices insurance defense is running "tort reform" bills that will directly benefit clients of the firm for which he works.
2
Posted on 6/12/24 at 12:34 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
quote:
I wonder why a person who practices insurance defense is running "tort reform" bills that will directly benefit clients of the firm for which he works.
True. But, ironically, the bill may hurt him as an insurance defense lawyer.
Less lawsuits = less lawsuits to DEFEND too.
Defense lawyers have a symbiotic relationship with plaintiff's lawyers.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 12:36 pm to CreoleTigerEsq
The best part is Melerine and his wife filing suit against their UM carrier alleging a consortium claim and bad faith arising out of an MVA she was in in or around the time she was running for public office.
Every lawsuit in the courthouse is frivolous except my own.
Every lawsuit in the courthouse is frivolous except my own.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 12:37 pm
Posted on 6/12/24 at 12:37 pm to Alt26
quote:
True. But, ironically, the bill may hurt him as an insurance defense lawyer.
This, if tort reform truly works, there's a lot fewer lawsuits for insurance lawyers to defend. Plaintiff attorneys will still get their fees.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 12:38 pm
Posted on 6/12/24 at 1:07 pm to ragincajun03
Maybe Jeff will be too busy gargling the Plantiffs Bar to veto.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 1:13 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
The fundamental issue with the auto-PI system in LA ultimately comes down to juries.
Correct but also, to a larger extent, judges.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:06 pm to AlxTgr
quote:
That's not a benefit. I see you don't actually want to address the money that fits no category of damages.
the bill was sent.
Because the plaintiff pays money to a health insurance company they were able to get that bill reduced.
do you think the Defendant deserves that benefit that the plaintiff worked and paid for?
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:10 pm to Alt26
quote:
True. But, ironically, the bill may hurt him as an insurance defense lawyer. Less lawsuits = less lawsuits to DEFEND too. Defense lawyers have a symbiotic relationship with plaintiff's lawyers.
this bills won’t create less lawsuits. they will lower settlements.
Defense Attorneys will still get theirs.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:14 pm to dgnx6
quote:This
Get sued by some chick with back problems before accident then say you caused back problems. Company settles even though she had history of back problems.
The lawyers will even say "yeah, my client's back was hurt BEFORE the wreck but since you hit them, it 'aggravated' the injury".
I despise ambulance chasers.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 2:15 pm
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:14 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
the bill was sent.
Because the plaintiff pays money to a health insurance company they were able to get that bill reduced.
do you think the Defendant deserves that benefit that the plaintiff worked and paid for?
The text of HB 423 arguably addresses that. It states the court may award the claimant up to 30% of the difference between the amount billed and the amount actually paid to the health insurer "in consideration of the claimant's cost of procurement"
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:30 pm to SammyTiger
quote:So what? It's not damage. It's a pure windfall.
Because the plaintiff pays money to a health insurance company they were able to get that bill reduced
quote:It's not a benefit. The damages are what they are. Do you really think the billed amounts are based upon reality or market? No, you know they aren't. You just want free money because you are a leach on society.
do you think the Defendant deserves that benefit that the plaintiff worked and paid for?
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:42 pm to Alt26
quote:
Of course. It's a PR battle at this point.
The battle is over; one side just doesn't realize it yet.
Landry will veto and there will be some PR prestidigitation about how they will "form a committee" to work on the issue and find an agreement everyone can live with.
Watch.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 2:45 pm
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:46 pm to ragincajun03
quote:
HB 24 would have required a claimant prove their alleged injuries were caused by the accident.
As others have said, the Housley presumption distorts this. A plaintiff can simply say I felt fine before (despite having had multiple slip and falls, surgeries, or other similar things) and because you can't prove a feeling otherwise, you are on the losing end of causation. It can make a 5 m.p.h. nudge into a few hundred thousand dollar back case (when the person has had back problems for years). It needs to go in in the PI context.
quote:
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.
I'll offer a different take that I don't know has been said already. What if a lawyer has a pre-arranged agreement with a treating physician for significant discounts on the back end in exchange for referrals? The doctor has every incentive to charge high for the referrals (the lawyer/client get the windfall) and the physician gets a steady stream of clients. It's this kind of stuff that just feels icky and might properly be the source of some of this collateral source frustration.
**
The real tort reform bill never made it out of committee. Put a cap on pain and suffering for soft-tissue injuries. As long as courts are going to keep affirming awards based on months of treatment as some barometer of the level of injuries (thus incentivizing unnecessary treatment, which drives up bills and award), the focus should be on combatting that.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 2:49 pm to SammyTiger
quote:I would rather they get the benefit than the plantiff attorney. I actually need them to make money and do a good job.
because health insurance is so cheap and free the a-hole who couldn’t get offf their phone and rear ended you and the insurance company who wouldn’t pay you till you lawyered up should get all the benefits of that.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:17 pm to SammyTiger
quote:Will it cost us money? My insurance hasn't gone up. Whats wrong with dropping it to 20%?
but apparently we need to drop it to 20%. that should really save us money
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:26 pm to Alt26
quote:
The text of HB 423 arguably addresses that. It states the court may award the claimant up to 30% of the difference between the amount billed and the amount actually paid to the health insurer "in consideration of the claimant's cost of procurement"
And the current law is 40% now.
It used to be 100%
We already dropped it 60% and the insurance lobby wants you to think this last 10
will make a meaningful difference to them. Enough that they actually drop your rates or stop raising them.
But they won’t.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:33 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
And the current law is 40% now.
Current law is shall, not may.
Big difference.
Also, I love how you argue that the theft of only 40% should be fine since it's not 100% anymore.
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:37 pm to udtiger
I love how you argue that not giving the defendant the benefits of your labor is theft.
They didn’t lower the bill.
the bill wasn’t lowered for free.
plaintiff pays for their health insurance. Defendants shouldn’t be entitled to the benefits of a 3rd party contract.
and my argument is that we made a bigger adjustment to it years ago than they’re asking now and we saw no benefits.
What’s the point of this? It’s supposed to save us money but they can’t show it will. They insurance companies won’t make any commitment to that.
They didn’t lower the bill.
the bill wasn’t lowered for free.
plaintiff pays for their health insurance. Defendants shouldn’t be entitled to the benefits of a 3rd party contract.
and my argument is that we made a bigger adjustment to it years ago than they’re asking now and we saw no benefits.
What’s the point of this? It’s supposed to save us money but they can’t show it will. They insurance companies won’t make any commitment to that.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 3:40 pm
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:44 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
plaintiff pays for their health insurance. Defendants shouldn’t be entitled to the benefits of a 3rd party contract.
I think that is a valid argument...which has been the basis for upholding the collateral source rule in past decisions. But the counter argument is that a plaintiff shouldn't be entitled to the difference that legally can't be collected by the provider either.
I have my doubts it will actually lower premiums (TBD), but I do think there is a reasonable middle ground when it come to the collateral source rule.
This post was edited on 6/12/24 at 3:46 pm
Posted on 6/12/24 at 3:48 pm to SammyTiger
What is the damage the victim as suffered for that 40%?
Payment of insurance premium? They were paying that already.
Lifetime benefit caps are gone thanks to Obamacare, so you can't argue that.
Health insurer gets its $ back through subjugation or contractual reimbursement rights through the policyholder.
I don't give a damn if it doesn't result in a single dollar less in auto insurance premiums. It's forcing a defendant tortfeasor to pay over and above the actual damage he has caused to the victim.
It is theft.
Payment of insurance premium? They were paying that already.
Lifetime benefit caps are gone thanks to Obamacare, so you can't argue that.
Health insurer gets its $ back through subjugation or contractual reimbursement rights through the policyholder.
I don't give a damn if it doesn't result in a single dollar less in auto insurance premiums. It's forcing a defendant tortfeasor to pay over and above the actual damage he has caused to the victim.
It is theft.
Page 3 of 4
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News