We are glad to grant permission to use or reprint copyrighted materials when it has the authors' licenses to do so.
However, before you use any or any part of these materials, you must obtain the necessary permissions.
The procedure for requesting permission to use or reprint materials isn't cumbersome (see below), and the ABA staff makes every effort to respond in a manner that is timely and accommodating of special circumstances. Still, to plan ahead and avoid last-minute emergencies that it might not be possible to accommodate, allow approximately 10 working days for processing the request.
Contact Lillian Gaskin
gaskinl@staff.abanet.org
HOW TO SEND YOUR REQUEST
Send your request by mail, FAX, or e-mail, to:
Monday, May 08 2006 @ 03:41 PM EDT Contributed by: James Views: 399
Re: S. 23, federal legislation to preempt sThe Senate just voted on a cloture petition on S. 23. 60 votes were needed to invoke cloture and proceed to consideration of S. 23. The vote was 49-44 so it was 11 votes short and S. 23 has been set aside.
tate medical malpractice laws on obstetrics
Friday, April 21 2006 @ 05:19 AM EDT Contributed by: James Views: 2255
LINKS TO THIS PETITION WERE LISTED PROMINENTLY IN DRUDGE REPORT ON APRIL 21,2006
THE SPONSORS OF THE PETITION ARE
Contact Us
Doctors for Medical Liability Reform
317 Massachusetts Ave., N.E.
Suite 100
Washington, DC 20002
Phone: 1-877-9REFORM
dmlr@ProtectPatientsNow.org
Press Office Contact
Courtney Sanders
(202) 380-0616
press@ProtectPatientsNow.org
Thursday, April 13 2006 @ 08:03 AM EDT Contributed by: James Views: 439
Book Review
The Medical Malpractice Myth, by Tom Baker,
214 pp, $22.50, ISBN 0-226-03648-0, Chicago,
III,University of Chicago Press, 2005.
THIS IS A BOOK WITH A MISSION, BY AN
author with a-point of view. In a very
readable way Tom Baker sets up, then
knocks down, what he terms the "medical
malpractice myth," a partisan campaign
promoted by organized medicine,
health insurers, businesses, and
the Bush Administration. Its components,
he says, are these:
Saturday, April 08 2006 @ 06:17 AM EDT Contributed by: James Views: 438
Washington - Today, Alliance for Justice releases its report, Health Courts Under the Microscope, a comprehensive analysis of the most recent medical malpractice tort reform proposal circulating in Congress. The Health Courts plan would remove medical malpractice cases from courts and create a new administrative system to handle medical
malpractice claims. Legislation introduced in the Senate, S. 1337,
would allow states to implement the Health Courts plan.
Thursday, March 30 2006 @ 03:40 PM EST Contributed by: James Views: 786
Our school (Univ. of Nebraska) newspaper covered the recent debate about tort reform in Illinois and Missouri. I noticed the article and thought I'd drop you a quick note that we have done some business surveys here in Nebraska that show that tort reform is not among the top "cost-of-doing business" priorities of businesspeople. So, why does it always seem to be for the U.S. Chamber? Anyway, in case it would be of interest, we have two sets of survey results in our publication Business In Nebraska, which is posted at our website www.bbr.unl.edu.
Regards,
Eric Thompson
Director
Bureau of Business Research
Department of Economics
College of Business Administration
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Lincoln, NE 68588-0406
Telephone: 402-472-3318
FAX: 402-472-9700
ethompson2@unl.edu
Tuesday, March 28 2006 @ 05:45 AM EST Contributed by: James Views: 336
See step five.
DLC | New Dem Dispatch | March 3, 2006
Idea of the Week: A Progressive Alternative To The Bush Health Care Agenda
Yesterday we presented an analysis of the Bush administration's Darwinian health care agenda, based on an important new policy briefing from David Kendall of the Progressive Policy Institute. But Kendall's paper also lays out a progressive alternative agenda that would move our health care system in the right direction and deal with the big challenges of cost, coverage, and quality.
Monday, March 27 2006 @ 02:13 PM EST Contributed by: James Views: 437
Amy Widman
Center for Justice & Democracy
(publication forthcoming by the Pace Law Review)
Over the past few decades, there have been repeated proposals to remove medical
malpractice claims from the civil justice system entirely. These claims, most of which
are negligence claims, are traditionally brought in state courts and appear before a jury.
The proposals typically focus on removing the claims from the jury and creating alternate
tribunals for adjudication. Usually vague promises that an alternative system will be
more fair to plaintiffs and/or will provide more compensation accompany such proposals.
To date, the proposals have all been struck down. However, the current administration
has made tort reform a priority and once again the topic of specialized health courts is up
for discussion.
Wednesday, March 15 2006 @ 10:23 AM EST Contributed by: James Views: 591
In response to Philip K. Howard's Feb. 28 Letter to the Editor, I write to clarify the position that the American Bar Association has taken with respect to what proponents call "health courts." The association has long supported the use of alternatives to litigation for resolution of medical malpractice cases when such alternatives are entered into on a voluntary basis after a dispute has arisen. The policy adopted by the ABA at its recent midyear meeting opposes the creation of mandatory health courts that would deny patients injured by medical negligence their right to request a trial by jury and their right to receive full compensation for their injuries. The recommendation on "health courts" passed overwhelmingly by a voice vote in the 547-member ABA House, which is the policy-making body of the association. And despite Mr. Howard's statement to the contrary, the ABA Health Law Section of the ABA took no position on the recommendation. Two members of the Health Law Section (who would eventually vote against the recommendation), speaking as individuals and not for the section, addressed the ABA House of Delegates to ask that the vote on the recommendation be postponed pending further study.
As we try to find common ground, we must make sure we protect those severely hurt because of the negligence of others. The ABA welcomes further dialogue on this important issue.
Michael S. Greco
President
American Bar Association
Washington
