The new millennium was hard on Jill Warren. But Warren has friends in high places. Although she apparently filed no formal application for the job, Attorney General John Cornyn hired her in January 2001 as a “special assistant attorney general” with a salary of $100,848 a year.
Read the Lobby Watch
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Wednesday, April 17, 2002
Dollar Docket
Worst Possible System:Blindfolded Voters Pick Gagged Judges
Dallas State District Judge Margaret Keliher is flouting Texas’ Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to resign from judicial office when they launch a contested run for a non-judicial office. This rule does not appear to require Judge Keliher’s resignation because she is running for Dallas County judge. In fact, however, Judge Keliher is hiding her indiscretion behind a misnomer.
Read Dollar Docket #20
Friday, April 12, 2002
Texas Observer: Judging Prissy
A month after it torpedoed President Bush's nomination of Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Senate Judiciary Committee should carefully scrutinize--and then forcefully reject--another Bush pick for the Fifth Circuit: current Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen. Read the article at the Texas Observer
Texas Observer, 4/12/2002
A month after it torpedoed President Bush's nomination of Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Senate Judiciary Committee should carefully scrutinize--and then forcefully reject--another Bush pick for the Fifth Circuit: current Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.
One of the nation's most conservative appellate courts, the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit (which covers Texas) gained international notoriety two years ago for its "sleeping-lawyer" ruling. A three-judge panel was unmoved by the fact that Texas death-row inmate Calvin Burdine's court-appointed attorney had napped during his capital murder trial. To merit a new trial, the court ruled that Burdine had to show that the naps occurred during crucial portions of the trial.
Now comes Bush nominee Priscilla Owen, who?with fellow Justice Nathan Hecht?currently occupies the radical right wing of the conservative Texas Supreme Court. While Pickering's chief defect was his lack of commitment to civil rights, a thorough Owen vetting will turn up a frightening number of reasons to reject this nominee. Rumors at press time suggest that an Owen hearing is imminent.
Prior to her 1994 election to Texas' highest civil court, Owen was an oil and gas attorney for the corporate defense firm of Andrews & Kurth. Unlike Pickering, who is a federal district court judge, Owen has none of the criminal trial experience that the "sleeping-lawyer" court seems to sorely need. Yet the experience she has gained in her seven years on Texas' high court may prove to be an even greater obstacle to her confirmation.
Any Texas Supreme Court justice aspiring to the federal bench can expect rough sledding in the U.S. Senate. In much of the country, people are shocked to learn that our Supreme Court justices are elected in million-dollar campaigns that are heavily financed by special interests that have cases before the court. A 1999 Texas Supreme Court poll found that even within Texas, 83 percent of the public, 79 percent of lawyers, and 48 percent of judges say that campaign contributions significantly influence judicial decisions.
Texas Ethics Commission and Court records reveal that 37 percent of the $1.4 million that Justice Owen raised for her campaigns came from lawyers and litigants who had a direct stake in cases before her court. In a 1996 opinion, for example, the Court reversed a lower court ruling and lowered the tax exposure of a major donor, the H.E.B. grocery store chain (H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Jefferson County). In another case, the Court upheld a verdict for a plaintiff injured in an H.E.B. store. Yet Justice Owen--who has taken $7,500 from H.E.B.'s owner--joined a dissent that would have overturned that jury verdict (H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto).On the day of the H.E.B. tax case, the court issued an Owen-authored opinion that haunts her nomination like a nightmare. That decision overturned a lower appeals court ruling to free Enron Corp.--the justices' No. 1 source of corporate donations--from having to pay $224,989 in school taxes (Enron v. Spring Independent School District). Speaking about Owen's nomination last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT), said, "I have heard from a lot of Republicans who are concerned about her Enron connections." One question that seems certain to arise in an Owen hearing is something like: "Justice Owen, please explain how a judge who is not blind to appearances of impropriety would take $8,600 from Enron's PAC and executives--including $1,000 from Ken Lay--and then NOT recuse herself from a $224,989 ruling in Enron's favor?"
While all nine Texas Supreme Court justices remain pro-business conservatives, Justices Owen and Hecht (who inspired the opposition PAC "Hecht No!") were reduced to an isolated bloc of extremist dissent in 1998, following the appointment of several relatively moderate justices by none other than then-Governor George W. Bush. Bush's appointments--combined with a "60 Minutes" exposé of the court's campaign finance conflicts--brought a noticeable dose of restraint to the rest of the court. But Justices Owen and Hecht continued to masquerade as "strict constructionists" (judges who narrowly interpret laws rather than pursuing their own agendas) as they zealously promoted the interests of big business and the New Right with much less restraint than their colleagues.
The family of anti-abortion activist and right-wing mogul James Leininger has given $12,350 to Owen's two Supreme Court campaigns. In 2000, the Court considered a state law that mandates parental notification before minors receive abortions. The Legislature allowed an exception to this parental notification law if a judge determines that this notification is not in a minor's best interest. Justice Owen wrote a concurring opinion in the case, which would have required judges to determine that both the parental notification and the abortion itself were in a minor's best interest. Such opinions are hardly "strict constructions" by any standard.
Since joining the high court in 1995, Owen has written and joined a slew of activist opinions that favor businesses over consumers, defendants over plaintiffs, and judges over lawmakers and juries. A 1999 study by Austin-based Court Watch found that, during Justice Owen's tenure, individuals won just 36 percent of their cases, compared to a winning percentage of 66 percent for businesses, 70 percent for insurers, and 86 percent for medical interests. Having taken more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from interests with cases in her court, Justice Owen has produced a body of activist opinions that are extremist--even by Texas standards.
On the day of Judge Pickering's rejection, President Bush's top political advisor, Karl Rove (who ran Owen's first Supreme Court campaign), gave a defiant address to the Christian Right's Family Research Council. In a recording of the address obtained by the Washington Post, Rove said that Judiciary Committee Democrats used Pickering to send Bush a message about the "judicial lynching" that awaits "strong conservative" nominees. "Guess what?" asked Rove. "They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy."
In fact, the committee must keep sending the message until it is heard. Rejecting Pickerings and Owens is the only possible path to nominees who are better qualified and more deserving of so much government power. President Bush clearly knows better-qualified, moderate conservatives, having appointed some of them to the Texas Supreme Court. Owen's nomination is a sop to the Far Right. The Judiciary Committee should treat it as such.
Judging Prissy
Andrew WheatTexas Observer, 4/12/2002
A month after it torpedoed President Bush's nomination of Mississippi Judge Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Senate Judiciary Committee should carefully scrutinize--and then forcefully reject--another Bush pick for the Fifth Circuit: current Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen.
One of the nation's most conservative appellate courts, the New Orleans-based Fifth Circuit (which covers Texas) gained international notoriety two years ago for its "sleeping-lawyer" ruling. A three-judge panel was unmoved by the fact that Texas death-row inmate Calvin Burdine's court-appointed attorney had napped during his capital murder trial. To merit a new trial, the court ruled that Burdine had to show that the naps occurred during crucial portions of the trial.
Now comes Bush nominee Priscilla Owen, who?with fellow Justice Nathan Hecht?currently occupies the radical right wing of the conservative Texas Supreme Court. While Pickering's chief defect was his lack of commitment to civil rights, a thorough Owen vetting will turn up a frightening number of reasons to reject this nominee. Rumors at press time suggest that an Owen hearing is imminent.
Prior to her 1994 election to Texas' highest civil court, Owen was an oil and gas attorney for the corporate defense firm of Andrews & Kurth. Unlike Pickering, who is a federal district court judge, Owen has none of the criminal trial experience that the "sleeping-lawyer" court seems to sorely need. Yet the experience she has gained in her seven years on Texas' high court may prove to be an even greater obstacle to her confirmation.
Any Texas Supreme Court justice aspiring to the federal bench can expect rough sledding in the U.S. Senate. In much of the country, people are shocked to learn that our Supreme Court justices are elected in million-dollar campaigns that are heavily financed by special interests that have cases before the court. A 1999 Texas Supreme Court poll found that even within Texas, 83 percent of the public, 79 percent of lawyers, and 48 percent of judges say that campaign contributions significantly influence judicial decisions.
Texas Ethics Commission and Court records reveal that 37 percent of the $1.4 million that Justice Owen raised for her campaigns came from lawyers and litigants who had a direct stake in cases before her court. In a 1996 opinion, for example, the Court reversed a lower court ruling and lowered the tax exposure of a major donor, the H.E.B. grocery store chain (H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Jefferson County). In another case, the Court upheld a verdict for a plaintiff injured in an H.E.B. store. Yet Justice Owen--who has taken $7,500 from H.E.B.'s owner--joined a dissent that would have overturned that jury verdict (H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bilotto).On the day of the H.E.B. tax case, the court issued an Owen-authored opinion that haunts her nomination like a nightmare. That decision overturned a lower appeals court ruling to free Enron Corp.--the justices' No. 1 source of corporate donations--from having to pay $224,989 in school taxes (Enron v. Spring Independent School District). Speaking about Owen's nomination last month, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT), said, "I have heard from a lot of Republicans who are concerned about her Enron connections." One question that seems certain to arise in an Owen hearing is something like: "Justice Owen, please explain how a judge who is not blind to appearances of impropriety would take $8,600 from Enron's PAC and executives--including $1,000 from Ken Lay--and then NOT recuse herself from a $224,989 ruling in Enron's favor?"
While all nine Texas Supreme Court justices remain pro-business conservatives, Justices Owen and Hecht (who inspired the opposition PAC "Hecht No!") were reduced to an isolated bloc of extremist dissent in 1998, following the appointment of several relatively moderate justices by none other than then-Governor George W. Bush. Bush's appointments--combined with a "60 Minutes" exposé of the court's campaign finance conflicts--brought a noticeable dose of restraint to the rest of the court. But Justices Owen and Hecht continued to masquerade as "strict constructionists" (judges who narrowly interpret laws rather than pursuing their own agendas) as they zealously promoted the interests of big business and the New Right with much less restraint than their colleagues.
The family of anti-abortion activist and right-wing mogul James Leininger has given $12,350 to Owen's two Supreme Court campaigns. In 2000, the Court considered a state law that mandates parental notification before minors receive abortions. The Legislature allowed an exception to this parental notification law if a judge determines that this notification is not in a minor's best interest. Justice Owen wrote a concurring opinion in the case, which would have required judges to determine that both the parental notification and the abortion itself were in a minor's best interest. Such opinions are hardly "strict constructions" by any standard.
Since joining the high court in 1995, Owen has written and joined a slew of activist opinions that favor businesses over consumers, defendants over plaintiffs, and judges over lawmakers and juries. A 1999 study by Austin-based Court Watch found that, during Justice Owen's tenure, individuals won just 36 percent of their cases, compared to a winning percentage of 66 percent for businesses, 70 percent for insurers, and 86 percent for medical interests. Having taken more than $500,000 in campaign contributions from interests with cases in her court, Justice Owen has produced a body of activist opinions that are extremist--even by Texas standards.
On the day of Judge Pickering's rejection, President Bush's top political advisor, Karl Rove (who ran Owen's first Supreme Court campaign), gave a defiant address to the Christian Right's Family Research Council. In a recording of the address obtained by the Washington Post, Rove said that Judiciary Committee Democrats used Pickering to send Bush a message about the "judicial lynching" that awaits "strong conservative" nominees. "Guess what?" asked Rove. "They sent the wrong message to the wrong guy."
In fact, the committee must keep sending the message until it is heard. Rejecting Pickerings and Owens is the only possible path to nominees who are better qualified and more deserving of so much government power. President Bush clearly knows better-qualified, moderate conservatives, having appointed some of them to the Texas Supreme Court. Owen's nomination is a sop to the Far Right. The Judiciary Committee should treat it as such.
Thursday, April 11, 2002
Wall St. Journal: Insurers Caused Insurance Crisis
blurb goes here
* Page-One Story Dispels Plaintiff Boogeyman Invoked By Texas Governor, Doctors
Austin, TX: Three days after doctors staged a physician walkout in the Rio Grande Valley to blame escalating medical malpractice premiums on frivolous lawsuits, the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story today that says that mismanagement of the insurance industry during the go-go 1990s is the main cause of skyrocketing premiums.
The article, “Insurance Costs Loom As A Cloud Over the Economy,” says businesses around the country are getting slammed with increases of more than 100 percent on premiums covering diverse lines of insurance.
But the Journal concludes that the chief cause of these shocking increases is not terrorists or trial lawyers—but the industry’s own mismanagement. The crisis stems from “the legacy of a decade of imprudence among insurers—a period that combined a reckless price war with aggressive risk-taking,” the article says. “From 1993 to 2000, underwriters slashed rates, sometimes as much as 40%, and fought for customers by loosening terms on all types of business policies—from directors-and-officers’ liability coverage to medical-malpractice packages to workers’ compensation insurance.”
These practices became unsustainable by 1999, the Journal concludes, when insurers were paying out an average of $1.07 for every $1 of premium received on business coverage.
Regarding medical malpractice insurance, the article suggests that medical malpractice verdicts and health-care inflation costs played a secondary role to mismanagement of the insurance industry:
“St. Paul, the nation's largest writer of medical-malpractice insurance, with a 10% market share, decided to shutter its medical business altogether, after losing $940 million on it last year. St. Paul's medical-malpractice problems were emblematic of the impact of the insurance price war of the 1990s. Medical- malpractice insurance was the industry's most profitable line 10 years ago, and so many companies piled into it that they began underpricing their coverage. Then came rising jury verdicts in malpractice suits and higher health-care inflation.”
“This is further evidence that Citizens for Lawsuit Abuse, the Rio Grande Physicians PAC and Governor Perry have misdiagnosed the principal cause of runaway medical malpractice premiums,” said Texans for Public Justice Research Director Andrew Wheat. “Denying consumers their day in court will not cure this disease. Texas needs to rein in a runaway and mismanaged insurance industry.”
* Page-One Story Dispels Plaintiff Boogeyman Invoked By Texas Governor, Doctors
Austin, TX: Three days after doctors staged a physician walkout in the Rio Grande Valley to blame escalating medical malpractice premiums on frivolous lawsuits, the Wall Street Journal published a front-page story today that says that mismanagement of the insurance industry during the go-go 1990s is the main cause of skyrocketing premiums.
The article, “Insurance Costs Loom As A Cloud Over the Economy,” says businesses around the country are getting slammed with increases of more than 100 percent on premiums covering diverse lines of insurance.
But the Journal concludes that the chief cause of these shocking increases is not terrorists or trial lawyers—but the industry’s own mismanagement. The crisis stems from “the legacy of a decade of imprudence among insurers—a period that combined a reckless price war with aggressive risk-taking,” the article says. “From 1993 to 2000, underwriters slashed rates, sometimes as much as 40%, and fought for customers by loosening terms on all types of business policies—from directors-and-officers’ liability coverage to medical-malpractice packages to workers’ compensation insurance.”
These practices became unsustainable by 1999, the Journal concludes, when insurers were paying out an average of $1.07 for every $1 of premium received on business coverage.
Regarding medical malpractice insurance, the article suggests that medical malpractice verdicts and health-care inflation costs played a secondary role to mismanagement of the insurance industry:
“St. Paul, the nation's largest writer of medical-malpractice insurance, with a 10% market share, decided to shutter its medical business altogether, after losing $940 million on it last year. St. Paul's medical-malpractice problems were emblematic of the impact of the insurance price war of the 1990s. Medical- malpractice insurance was the industry's most profitable line 10 years ago, and so many companies piled into it that they began underpricing their coverage. Then came rising jury verdicts in malpractice suits and higher health-care inflation.”
“This is further evidence that Citizens for Lawsuit Abuse, the Rio Grande Physicians PAC and Governor Perry have misdiagnosed the principal cause of runaway medical malpractice premiums,” said Texans for Public Justice Research Director Andrew Wheat. “Denying consumers their day in court will not cure this disease. Texas needs to rein in a runaway and mismanaged insurance industry.”
Thursday, April 4, 2002
Gov. Perry Misdiagnoses Causes of Doctor's Insurance Woes
Some of Governor Perry’s policy prescriptions to rein in the rising rates that doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance would harm the very patients whom they are supposed to help, an Austin-based consumer watchdog organization said today. “The contention that ‘runaway’ jury awards and ‘frivolous’ lawsuits have forced reluctant insurance companies to hike their medical malpractice rates has not been independently substantiated. Governor Perry is falling for the same-old legislate-by-anecdote campaign that the tort lobby always uses to justify its attacks on consumer rights,” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. 
Austin, TX: Some of Governor Perry’s policy prescriptions to rein in the rising rates that doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance would harm the very patients whom they are supposed to help, an Austin-based consumer watchdog organization said today.
“The governor should get a second opinion before he swallows the misdiagnoses that are being spoon fed to him by the medical and tort lobbies,” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “The contention that ‘runaway’ jury awards and ‘frivolous’ lawsuits have forced reluctant insurance companies to hike their medical malpractice rates has not been independently substantiated. Governor Perry is falling for the same-old legislate-by-anecdote campaign that the tort lobby always uses to justify its attacks on consumer rights.”
The Governor’s plan to cap medical malpractice awards, regulate plaintiff attorneys’ fees, grant legal immunity to certain physicians and even create special medical malpractice tribunals will benefit insurers and—to a lesser degree—doctors at the expense of consumers. If the governor really wants to benefit consumers, he will have to concentrate more aggressively on his proposals for the state to collect better data on malpractice insurance rates and to play a role in insuring certain health-care providers.
The Governor’s sudden plan came in direct response to the walkout that Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and some Rio Grande Valley physicians have scheduled Monday to protest their claim that frivolous lawsuits are inflating malpractice insurance rates and driving doctors out of that area. Contrary to these claims, State Board of Medical Examiners data demonstrate that the number of doctors in the Rio Grande Valley has increased 20 percent in the past four years from 825 to 1,034 physicians.
“Fortunately, the evidence shows that medical malpractice claims and pay outs are not increasing at the alarming rates that CALA and the Governor would lead us to believe,” McDonald said. “Doctors should join consumers to demand that the state stop insurers from price gouging across the board—in the auto, home and health insurance markets. Abandoning patients and abolishing their rights is a reckless prescription for affordable insurance.”
As in the mid-1980s, the insurance industry priced its liability policies relatively low during the 1990’s stock market bubble to maximize the revenues that it could reinvest on Wall Street. Now that the bubble has burst, this cash-strapped industry seeks to blame the civil justice system for its own management failures.
Arguing that the facts do not bear out sensationalist claims, McDonald called upon the Governor to make Texas insurers fully disclose the basis of all premium-hike requests. Facts that the Governor and CALA have chosen to ignore include:
Governor Perry Misdiagnoses Causes of Doctor's Insurance Woes
| For Immediate Release: | For More Information Contact: |
| April 4, 2002 | Craig McDonald, 512-472-9770 |
Austin, TX: Some of Governor Perry’s policy prescriptions to rein in the rising rates that doctors pay for medical malpractice insurance would harm the very patients whom they are supposed to help, an Austin-based consumer watchdog organization said today.
“The governor should get a second opinion before he swallows the misdiagnoses that are being spoon fed to him by the medical and tort lobbies,” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “The contention that ‘runaway’ jury awards and ‘frivolous’ lawsuits have forced reluctant insurance companies to hike their medical malpractice rates has not been independently substantiated. Governor Perry is falling for the same-old legislate-by-anecdote campaign that the tort lobby always uses to justify its attacks on consumer rights.”
The Governor’s plan to cap medical malpractice awards, regulate plaintiff attorneys’ fees, grant legal immunity to certain physicians and even create special medical malpractice tribunals will benefit insurers and—to a lesser degree—doctors at the expense of consumers. If the governor really wants to benefit consumers, he will have to concentrate more aggressively on his proposals for the state to collect better data on malpractice insurance rates and to play a role in insuring certain health-care providers.
The Governor’s sudden plan came in direct response to the walkout that Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) and some Rio Grande Valley physicians have scheduled Monday to protest their claim that frivolous lawsuits are inflating malpractice insurance rates and driving doctors out of that area. Contrary to these claims, State Board of Medical Examiners data demonstrate that the number of doctors in the Rio Grande Valley has increased 20 percent in the past four years from 825 to 1,034 physicians.
“Fortunately, the evidence shows that medical malpractice claims and pay outs are not increasing at the alarming rates that CALA and the Governor would lead us to believe,” McDonald said. “Doctors should join consumers to demand that the state stop insurers from price gouging across the board—in the auto, home and health insurance markets. Abandoning patients and abolishing their rights is a reckless prescription for affordable insurance.”
As in the mid-1980s, the insurance industry priced its liability policies relatively low during the 1990’s stock market bubble to maximize the revenues that it could reinvest on Wall Street. Now that the bubble has burst, this cash-strapped industry seeks to blame the civil justice system for its own management failures.
Arguing that the facts do not bear out sensationalist claims, McDonald called upon the Governor to make Texas insurers fully disclose the basis of all premium-hike requests. Facts that the Governor and CALA have chosen to ignore include:
- The number of physicians per 100,000 Texans has risen steadily over the last 20 years. In the past four years, the number of physicians in the Valley’s Hidalgo and Cameron counties jumped 20 percent.
- State Board of Medical Examiners data show that high-risk medical specialists also are coming to the Valley. Between January of 1998 and January of 2002, Hidalgo and Cameron Counties saw:
- An increase from 42 to 58 anesthesiologists;
- An increase from 17 to 22 emergency medicine doctors;
- An increase from 7 to 9 neurosurgeons; and
- An increase from 52 to 72 obstetricians and gynecologists.
- Increases in medical malpractice rates transcend the Valley. After holding steady for years, these rates are increasing nationally by between 10 percent and 40 percent. Mismanagement of the industry’s pricing and investments is the main cause of these rate spikes. The $108 million that St. Paul Insurance Co. lost in the Enron debacle, for example, is almost three times its malpractice pay outs in Texas in 2000.
- Nationally, the average insurance payment to a medical negligence victim is $30,000. This amount has remained virtually flat for a decade, according to the Consumer Federation of America. Jury Verdict Research uses unscientific data to suggest dramatic increases in jury awards.
- Nationally, medical malpractice costs, as a percentage of national health care expenditures, are at an all- time low of 0.55 percent, according to the Consumer Federation of America.
- The National Academy of Sciences reports that up to 98,000 people are killed each year by hospital medical errors; these fatalities far exceed those caused by car accidents, breast cancer or AIDS. A Harvard University study found that just one out of every eight malpractice victims ever files a claim.
- Overall consumer medical cost increases far outstrip the increase in medical malpractice rates. Between 1988 and 1998, U.S. medical care costs increased 75 percent, while malpractice premiums increased 5.6 percent.
- Responding in March to research that shows no significant difference between insurance rates in states that passed “tort reforms” and those that did not, the American Insurance Association said, “The industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.” Doctors in states that have capped legal damages pay higher malpractice premiums than those in states with no caps.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
