FalseProphet

quote:

---

I see polls and fake news saying its very unpopular,

---

I think there are parts of it that are unpopular. If someone asked me if I was for or against it, I'd say I'm against some of the revisions to the Higher Education Act, but generally in favor of the permanent tax cuts. On a poll, that probably puts me in the unfavorable column, although I don't know that my cons truly outweigh my pros.

quote:

---

How about passengers, those who don’t drive, and under age occupants?

---

Give them a cause of action directly against the uninsured driver who put them at risk.

quote:

---

There’s an Inns of Court in almost every city over 100k in population

---

My city doesn’t even sniff that much. They’re literally everywhere that might have 10 lawyers who want to have social hour.

quote:

---

No, but it's a hell of a lot better than being run by the 1898 Lawrason Act.

---

No one said you couldn’t do a HRC. It’s the actual contents of the Charter that are terrible.

It’s a document that reads like a bunch of petulant children might be scared the people would elect a Mayor that disagreed with them.

All they can do is send money back home. It’s like throwing a whole bunch of cash at a trailer park. It’s still a trailer park.

One of the first laws passed in January should funnel all challenges to admin actions to a random three judge court comprised of judges randomly drawn nationally from the courts of appeal and then straight to the Supreme Court.

Would make California think long and hard about filing if it can’t draw a favorable California judge, doesn’t know that it won’t get a conservative court, and then it only has one layer before Supreme Court review (meaning lower courts can’t stay an action to death).

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.

Two responses to this bill:

1) This exception already exists for LED, so it’s not a completely new idea.

2) The bill goes too far to fill a gap that absolutely needs to be filled. I’ve worked on municipal economic development projects, and they are HARD to work on. Companies have a disincentive to share information about their business, including its financials or operating documents, because they are immediately public (even if no deal happens). It hamstrings all sides. But I think once a deal is signed, the records should be public except for any confidential business information. Allow the parties room to negotiate, but make them public at the end.

Why can’t they just make the prescriptive period for MVAs and slip and falls 2 years without screwing with my nice 1 year period?

In

quote:

---

Didn’t want Wilson to get 50% of the vote with all of the Republicans in the running splitting votes.

---

Someone doesn’t know how to math.

Voted for Wags. I am convinced that Landry is Jindal without being nearly as smart. That’s scary as shite.