One of Texans for Lawsuit Reform's big new contributors co-founded Houston's Quantlab, which filed state and federal lawsuits against two math whizzes who wrote algorithms to drive the company's high-speed securities trades. Is there a mathematical solution to explain the tort-reformers' hypocrisy?
Grab your slide rule and test Lobby Watch's bold hypothesis.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Showing posts with label Civil Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Civil Justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 4, 2014
Lobby Watch: Anti-Tort Activist Sues for $1.3 Billion
Months after its CEO gave $250,000 to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, Energy Transfer Partners decided to build an interstate pipeline with another company. That deal soured, prompting Energy Transfer to sue its ex-business partners for up to $1.3 billion.
The new Lobby Watch notes that this same litigious company is bankrolling the gubernatorial campaign of a fellow tort-reforming plaintiff.
The new Lobby Watch notes that this same litigious company is bankrolling the gubernatorial campaign of a fellow tort-reforming plaintiff.
Friday, July 12, 2013
New Report Tracks Texas Civil Justice Wars
The Center for Study of Responsive Law has released a new report titled “The Rise and Fall (and Rise?) of Texas Trial Lawyers.” The sixty-six-page report focuses on the attacks on the civil justice system in Texas over the last two decades.
More info on the report is at the Center for Study of Responsive Law.
More info on the report is at the Center for Study of Responsive Law.
Monday, July 11, 2011
HBO Documentary Explores "Tort Reform" Myths
HOT COFFEE, a documentary exploring the myths behind the "tort reform" movement directed by consumer attorney Susan Saladof is airing on HBO this month after its premier earlier this year at the Sundance film festival. The film takes a close look at Texas and features several Texas advocates, including TPJ staff.
Read a review of the film at the New York Times.
Read a review of the film at the New York Times.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
In light of BP spill, advocates urge Texas
to rethink corporate immunity
TPJ and its allies in the consumer, environmental and labor community addressed a joint House hearing Thursday to urge the legislature to overturn liability limits that give immunity for corporate wrongdoers and jeopardize community and worker safety.
Read the advocacy groups' media statement.
Read the advocacy groups' media statement.
Friday, April 17, 2009
Austin American-Statesman: Lawmakers should correct Supreme Court workers' comp decision
The Texas Supreme Court has spoken once more on the Entergy case and has refused to change its original bad ruling. But the Legislature can get the last word by passing legislation to reverse this latest sign of the court's extreme tilt toward business interests. Read the article at the Austin American-Statesman
EDITORIAL
Friday, April 17, 2009
Austin American-Statesman
The Texas Supreme Court has spoken once more on the Entergy case and has refused to change its original bad ruling. But the Legislature can get the last word by passing legislation to reverse this latest sign of the court's extreme tilt toward business interests.
The Entergy case centered on whether the "premises owner" of a large facility, in this case a utility power plant, could get immunity against a lawsuit filed by a contract worker injured on the job simply by declaring itself to be the general contractor and buying workers' compensation coverage for the contractor and actual employer.
For years, the law in Texas has been clear: No. Attempts by some business interests to change the answer to "yes" were defeated in the Legislature. The fear was that plant owners would then have incentive to slack off on plant safety just by purchasing workers' compensation insurance when it hired a contractor to work on a plant, such as for repairs or maintenance.
In 2001, John Summers, a contract worker for International Maintenance Corp., was seriously injured while working on a plant owned by Entergy, an electric utility that serves Southeast Texas. He began collecting workers' compensation benefits from the insurer, and he sued Entergy, accusing it of providing defective equipment. But Entergy claimed immunity on grounds it had made itself the general contractor and purchased the workers' compensation insurance for the IMC employees.
The case worked its way up to the Texas Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled unanimously for Entergy. Criticism rained down on the court, and not just from workers' groups. Legislators from both parties faulted the court for misapplying long-settled law, as did the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, whose members generally represent those being sued — including plant owners.
The court agreed to reconsider the case, but on April 3, in a ruling written by Justice Paul Green, it stuck with its original decision — though this time there was dissent — on a 6-3 vote. Justice Harriet O'Neill, joined by Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson and Justice David Medina, were the dissenters.
Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, the Senate's acknowledged expert on workers' compensation law, has introduced a bill that would reverse the court's ruling, as has Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas. Giddings' House Bill 1657 was recommended for approval on a 9-0 vote this week by the House Business and Industry Committee and now goes to the full House.
The workers' compensation system is designed to provide employers an incentive to compensate, through insurers, workers injured on the job. In exchange, employers get immunity to lawsuits by those workers. The system, the Legislature has rightly judged, must not provide plant owners incentive to cut back on the expense of maintaining a safe plant simply by paying a contractor's workers' compensation insurance policy.
And lawmakers should spell it out in terms that even a majority of the Texas Supreme Court can't reinterpret to please certain business interests.
EDITORIAL
Lawmakers should correct Supreme Court workers' comp decision
The Texas Supreme Court reversed long-settled state law regarding the rights of injured workers to sue in some instances, but the Legislature can restore the law - and should.Friday, April 17, 2009
Austin American-Statesman
The Texas Supreme Court has spoken once more on the Entergy case and has refused to change its original bad ruling. But the Legislature can get the last word by passing legislation to reverse this latest sign of the court's extreme tilt toward business interests.
The Entergy case centered on whether the "premises owner" of a large facility, in this case a utility power plant, could get immunity against a lawsuit filed by a contract worker injured on the job simply by declaring itself to be the general contractor and buying workers' compensation coverage for the contractor and actual employer.
For years, the law in Texas has been clear: No. Attempts by some business interests to change the answer to "yes" were defeated in the Legislature. The fear was that plant owners would then have incentive to slack off on plant safety just by purchasing workers' compensation insurance when it hired a contractor to work on a plant, such as for repairs or maintenance.
In 2001, John Summers, a contract worker for International Maintenance Corp., was seriously injured while working on a plant owned by Entergy, an electric utility that serves Southeast Texas. He began collecting workers' compensation benefits from the insurer, and he sued Entergy, accusing it of providing defective equipment. But Entergy claimed immunity on grounds it had made itself the general contractor and purchased the workers' compensation insurance for the IMC employees.
The case worked its way up to the Texas Supreme Court, which in 2007 ruled unanimously for Entergy. Criticism rained down on the court, and not just from workers' groups. Legislators from both parties faulted the court for misapplying long-settled law, as did the Texas Association of Defense Counsel, whose members generally represent those being sued — including plant owners.
The court agreed to reconsider the case, but on April 3, in a ruling written by Justice Paul Green, it stuck with its original decision — though this time there was dissent — on a 6-3 vote. Justice Harriet O'Neill, joined by Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson and Justice David Medina, were the dissenters.
Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, the Senate's acknowledged expert on workers' compensation law, has introduced a bill that would reverse the court's ruling, as has Rep. Helen Giddings, D-Dallas. Giddings' House Bill 1657 was recommended for approval on a 9-0 vote this week by the House Business and Industry Committee and now goes to the full House.
The workers' compensation system is designed to provide employers an incentive to compensate, through insurers, workers injured on the job. In exchange, employers get immunity to lawsuits by those workers. The system, the Legislature has rightly judged, must not provide plant owners incentive to cut back on the expense of maintaining a safe plant simply by paying a contractor's workers' compensation insurance policy.
And lawmakers should spell it out in terms that even a majority of the Texas Supreme Court can't reinterpret to please certain business interests.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
TPJ Urges Legislature to Repeal “Entergy” Ruling
TPJ and its allies are urging the legislature to overturn the Texas Supreme Court's controversial worker-safety rulings in Entergy v. Summers. "In Entergy, an activist Supreme Court rewrote our worker safety laws to protect Exxon and BP," said TPJ Director Craig McDonald.
Read TPJ's "Repeal Entergy" memo to editorial boards.
Read TPJ's "Repeal Entergy" memo to editorial boards.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
TPJ Urges U.S. Supreme Court to End Payola Justice
TPJ has joined an unprecedented array of former state Supreme Court justices, business leaders and reform groups in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm one of the most basic legal rights: the right to a fair hearing before a neutral judge.
Texans For Public Justice Joins Jurists, Business Leaders,
Austin, TX: Texans for Public Justice (TPJ) has joined an unprecedented array of former state Supreme Court justices, business leaders and reform groups in urging the U.S. Supreme Court to affirm one of the most basic legal rights: the right to a fair hearing before a neutral arbiter.
TPJ and the groups filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday in Caperton v. Massey, a landmark case over the spiraling role of special-interest spending in judicial elections. The trend has troubled many, including former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and caused some to question whether American justice is “for sale.” The case will be heard March 3, 2009.
“Caperton poses to the U.S. Supreme Court the very issue that haunts Texas courts every day. Can citizens get a fair hearing from judges who take campaign money from other parties to a case in their court?” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “We’re urging the Supreme Court to set a standard that will clean up these conflicts of interest nationwide.”
Separate briefs supporting the Petitioners were filed by:
Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and counsel for the petitioners, argues that the Constitution’s due-process requirement requires West Virginia Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin to recuse himself from a lawsuit involving Don Blankenship, a coal executive who invested $3 million in Justice Benjamin’s election campaign.
"The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today,” Olson said of the case. “A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge."
For further background and case briefs visit the Brennan Center for Justice.
Texans For Public Justice Joins Jurists, Business Leaders,
Reform Groups in "Justice for Sale" Case at U.S. Supreme Court
TPJ Urges High Court To Require Judge’s Recusal From Big Contributor’s Case
| For Immediate Release: | For More Information Contact: |
| January 7, 2009 Download PDF | Craig McDonald, Texans for Public Justice, 512-472-9770 James Sample, Brennan Center, 212-992-8648Charlie Hall, Justice at Stake, 202-588-9454 |
TPJ and the groups filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court Tuesday in Caperton v. Massey, a landmark case over the spiraling role of special-interest spending in judicial elections. The trend has troubled many, including former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, and caused some to question whether American justice is “for sale.” The case will be heard March 3, 2009.
“Caperton poses to the U.S. Supreme Court the very issue that haunts Texas courts every day. Can citizens get a fair hearing from judges who take campaign money from other parties to a case in their court?” said Texans for Public Justice Director Craig McDonald. “We’re urging the Supreme Court to set a standard that will clean up these conflicts of interest nationwide.”
Separate briefs supporting the Petitioners were filed by:
- a group of 27 former state Supreme Court chief justices and justices;
- the Committee for Economic Development, Intel Corp., Lockheed Martin Corp., Pepsico, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Transparency International, and others.
- the American Bar Association;
- the Center for Public Accountability and Zicklin Center for Business Ethics Research at the Wharton School;
- the Brennan Center for Justice, Campaign Legal Center and Reform Institute
- the American Association for Justice;
- the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers;
- the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers;
- the Justice at Stake Campaign (in a brief on behalf of 27 reform groups).
Theodore B. Olson, former Solicitor General of the United States and counsel for the petitioners, argues that the Constitution’s due-process requirement requires West Virginia Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin to recuse himself from a lawsuit involving Don Blankenship, a coal executive who invested $3 million in Justice Benjamin’s election campaign.
"The improper appearance created by money in judicial elections is one of the most important issues facing our judicial system today,” Olson said of the case. “A line needs to be drawn somewhere to prevent a judge from hearing cases involving a person who has made massive campaign contributions to benefit the judge."
For further background and case briefs visit the Brennan Center for Justice.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
NPR: When Workers Comp Gets Complicated
The Texas Supreme Court may take the unusual step of reconsidering one of its decisions. It involves a workers' compensation case. The resolution of the case has enraged the plaintiff's lawyers, defense lawyers, Republicans and Democrats. Listen to the story at NPR
Monday, October 20, 2008
Lobby Watch:
Lawsuit Foe Pickens Sues Bankrupt Bank
Lawyers for Dallas billionaire T. Boone Pickens—who spent $1 million over the last four years to slam courtroom doors in the faces of Texas plaintiffs—traveled 1,500 miles this month to file a $60 million lawsuit against the bankrupt investment bank Lehman Brothers. That takes what people in Manhattan, where Pickens filed his lawsuit, call “chutzpah.”
Read the Lobby Watch
Read the Lobby Watch
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Health, Consumer & Safety Advocates Cite Dangers If 'Entergy' Ruling Stands
Leaders from Texas consumer, labor, worker-safety and corporate-accountability organizations warned of dangerous consequences for Texas’ workers and communities if the Texas Supreme Court’s reckless ‘Entergy’ ruling is not reversed by either the Court or the Legislature. Under growing pressure from safety advocates, editorial writers, and legislators who insist the Texas Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in its 2007 ruling in Entergy v Summers, the court held a rare rehearing today in Dallas. Health, Consumer & Safety Advocates
Dallas: Leaders from Texas consumer, labor, worker-safety and corporate-accountability organizations warned of dangerous consequences for Texas’ workers and communities if the Texas Supreme Court’s reckless ‘Entergy’ ruling is not reversed by either the Court or the Legislature. Under growing pressure from safety advocates, editorial writers, and legislators who insist the Texas Supreme Court overstepped its bounds in its 2007 ruling in Entergy v Summers, the court held a rare rehearing today in Dallas.
Texas safety advocates contend the Entergy ruling harms Texas communities and workers by shielding the owners of large industrial plants from accountability for injuries to contract workers employed at dangerous workplaces. Under the Entergy ruling, for example, the families of workers killed or injured in the 2005 BP explosion in Texas City would have been barred from pursuing legal claims in Texas courts. Those claims exposed unsafe plant practices, prompted new safety procedures and compensated victims of a preventable disaster. Absent such courtroom accountability, workers and communities will not be safe.
“The Texas Supreme Court’s do-over in the Entergy v. Summers case will have a direct impact on worker safety,” Texas AFL-CIO President Becky Moeller said. “Continuing the legal principle that has served Texas well for years will encourage companies to emphasize safety in dangerous workplaces. Reverting to the result reached in the first Entergy opinion would ‘fix’ what’s not broken and encourage companies to make new calculations of the cost of safety v. the risk of injury or death. As we have seen so many times, it is both cheaper and better business practice to place worker safety first, rather than game the system in a way that compromises safety.”
“Ignoring the law, legal precedent and the intent of the Legislature in the Entergy case, the Texas Supreme Court made the workplace in Texas even more dangerous,” said Glenn Smith, co-founder of the Texas Progress Council. “The ruling destroyed all notions of accountability, a Texas value if ever there was one. When no one is accountable, no one is safe. Let's hope the court restores accountability by reversing its earlier opinion."
“The Texas Supreme Court, once again, got it wrong in the Entergy decision on the facts and on the law,” said Alex Winslow, Executive Director of Texas Watch. “The ruling eliminates accountability and leaves us all more vulnerable. If the court doesn’t reverse this ruling, the legislature will be left to clean up the mess.”
“The court’s unanimous Entergy ruling is a reckless deregulation of Texas workplaces,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. “It will result in more accidents, more injuries and more preventable deaths. This is the ultimate example of an activist court legislating from the bench. The high court rewrote the law to benefit the oil, gas and chemical giants that will no longer be accountable to the public or to Texas courts.”
Link to Press Release from Rep. Craig Eiland, Sens. Jeff Wentworth & Rodney Ellis
Link to TPJ Fact Sheet on contributions to Supreme Court from Energy & Chemical Industry Donors
Health, Consumer & Safety Advocates
Cite Dangers If 'Entergy' Ruling Stands
Groups Renew Call for Legislative Action If High Court Fails to Restore Accountability
| For Immediate Release: | For More Information Contact: |
| October 16, 2008 Download PDF | Ed Sills, AFL-CIO, 512-477-6195 Alex Winslow, Texas Watch, 512-381-1111 Glenn Smith, Texas Progress Council, 512-322-0700 Craig McDonald, Texans for Public Justice, 512-472-9770 |
Texas safety advocates contend the Entergy ruling harms Texas communities and workers by shielding the owners of large industrial plants from accountability for injuries to contract workers employed at dangerous workplaces. Under the Entergy ruling, for example, the families of workers killed or injured in the 2005 BP explosion in Texas City would have been barred from pursuing legal claims in Texas courts. Those claims exposed unsafe plant practices, prompted new safety procedures and compensated victims of a preventable disaster. Absent such courtroom accountability, workers and communities will not be safe.
“The Texas Supreme Court’s do-over in the Entergy v. Summers case will have a direct impact on worker safety,” Texas AFL-CIO President Becky Moeller said. “Continuing the legal principle that has served Texas well for years will encourage companies to emphasize safety in dangerous workplaces. Reverting to the result reached in the first Entergy opinion would ‘fix’ what’s not broken and encourage companies to make new calculations of the cost of safety v. the risk of injury or death. As we have seen so many times, it is both cheaper and better business practice to place worker safety first, rather than game the system in a way that compromises safety.”
“Ignoring the law, legal precedent and the intent of the Legislature in the Entergy case, the Texas Supreme Court made the workplace in Texas even more dangerous,” said Glenn Smith, co-founder of the Texas Progress Council. “The ruling destroyed all notions of accountability, a Texas value if ever there was one. When no one is accountable, no one is safe. Let's hope the court restores accountability by reversing its earlier opinion."
“The Texas Supreme Court, once again, got it wrong in the Entergy decision on the facts and on the law,” said Alex Winslow, Executive Director of Texas Watch. “The ruling eliminates accountability and leaves us all more vulnerable. If the court doesn’t reverse this ruling, the legislature will be left to clean up the mess.”
“The court’s unanimous Entergy ruling is a reckless deregulation of Texas workplaces,” said Craig McDonald, director of Texans for Public Justice. “It will result in more accidents, more injuries and more preventable deaths. This is the ultimate example of an activist court legislating from the bench. The high court rewrote the law to benefit the oil, gas and chemical giants that will no longer be accountable to the public or to Texas courts.”
Link to Press Release from Rep. Craig Eiland, Sens. Jeff Wentworth & Rodney Ellis
Link to TPJ Fact Sheet on contributions to Supreme Court from Energy & Chemical Industry Donors
Dallas Morning News: Texas Supreme Court revisits workplace injury case
The Supreme Court of Texas held a rare rehearing of a unanimous decision Thursday, listening to arguments about whether it erred last year in ruling that a contract employee who suffered on-the-job injuries couldn't sue Entergy Gulf States, the company that owns the work site. "It's a reckless deregulation of Texas workplaces," said Craig McDonald, the director of Texas for Public Justice. "If this ruling is allowed to stand, there will be more accidents, more injuries and more preventable deaths."Read the article at the Dallas Morning News
By JEFF CARLTON / Associated Press
10/16/2008
The Supreme Court of Texas held a rare rehearing of a unanimous decision Thursday, listening to arguments about whether it erred last year in ruling that a contract employee who suffered on-the-job injuries couldn't sue the company that owns the work site.
The court's decision to revisit the case came after a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers — along with labor groups and accident victims — protested the original ruling, saying justices "flat-out got it wrong."
"It's a reckless deregulation of Texas workplaces," said Craig McDonald, the director of Texas for Public Justice. "If this ruling is allowed to stand, there will be more accidents, more injuries and more preventable deaths."
Turbine mechanic John Summers was a contractor when he suffered back, shoulder and arm injuries in a 2001 accident while repairing a leak on a hydrogen generator at an Entergy Gulf States plant in Bridge City. He sued Entergy, a power provider with regulated utilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas.
The court said Entergy was immune from the lawsuit because Summers was covered by a workers' compensation policy purchased by the company. The ruling extended immunity provisions to work site owners when such provisions had previously shielded only employers sued by their direct employees.
The court's decision also means that a "property owner could act as its own general contractor and could provide workers' compensation coverage to its subcontractors' employees," said Lee Parsley, an attorney for Texans for Lawsuit Reform. "That decision was correct."
In arguing before the court Thursday, Entergy attorney Jacqueline Stroh told the justices that "nothing warrants any consideration of this original opinion."
But Summers' attorney Collyn Peddie argued the ruling rendered the term general contractor "meaningless and absurd," and opened loopholes for most Texas companies to claim immunity from workers' lawsuits.
Peddie also argued that the Legislature never intended work site owners to be immune from injury lawsuits from contractors, a point supported in a brief signed by two Democratic and two Republican lawmakers. The lawmakers said the Workers Compensation Act provides protection from liability to employers who have purchased workers compensation insurance for their direct employees but was not meant to extend to employers who hired independent contractors.
"There is nothing in the legislative history that says they intended this result," Peddie said.
An unusual coalition that brought together union leaders and both Republican and Democratic lawmakers has criticized the ruling, albeit for different reasons. State Rep. Craig Eiland, a Democrat from Galveston, said the court overstepped its authority and "caused chills and shivers among legislators ... who do not want activist courts."
Other critics include relatives of the 15 workers killed in a 2005 BP plant explosion, who in April urged the Legislature to undo the court's ruling. Some of those hurt in the explosion wouldn't have been able to sue, said Eiland, whose district includes Texas City, site of the BP plant explosion.
"If this law had been in place, people ... who were maimed, crippled and burned would have been limited to Texas workers compensation," Eiland said.
The hearing was held at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law. The state supreme court routinely holds hearings at law schools and other sites around the state.
Texas Supreme Court revisits workplace injury case
By JEFF CARLTON / Associated Press
10/16/2008
The Supreme Court of Texas held a rare rehearing of a unanimous decision Thursday, listening to arguments about whether it erred last year in ruling that a contract employee who suffered on-the-job injuries couldn't sue the company that owns the work site.
The court's decision to revisit the case came after a bipartisan group of Texas lawmakers — along with labor groups and accident victims — protested the original ruling, saying justices "flat-out got it wrong."
"It's a reckless deregulation of Texas workplaces," said Craig McDonald, the director of Texas for Public Justice. "If this ruling is allowed to stand, there will be more accidents, more injuries and more preventable deaths."
Turbine mechanic John Summers was a contractor when he suffered back, shoulder and arm injuries in a 2001 accident while repairing a leak on a hydrogen generator at an Entergy Gulf States plant in Bridge City. He sued Entergy, a power provider with regulated utilities in Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas and Texas.
The court said Entergy was immune from the lawsuit because Summers was covered by a workers' compensation policy purchased by the company. The ruling extended immunity provisions to work site owners when such provisions had previously shielded only employers sued by their direct employees.
The court's decision also means that a "property owner could act as its own general contractor and could provide workers' compensation coverage to its subcontractors' employees," said Lee Parsley, an attorney for Texans for Lawsuit Reform. "That decision was correct."
In arguing before the court Thursday, Entergy attorney Jacqueline Stroh told the justices that "nothing warrants any consideration of this original opinion."
But Summers' attorney Collyn Peddie argued the ruling rendered the term general contractor "meaningless and absurd," and opened loopholes for most Texas companies to claim immunity from workers' lawsuits.
Peddie also argued that the Legislature never intended work site owners to be immune from injury lawsuits from contractors, a point supported in a brief signed by two Democratic and two Republican lawmakers. The lawmakers said the Workers Compensation Act provides protection from liability to employers who have purchased workers compensation insurance for their direct employees but was not meant to extend to employers who hired independent contractors.
"There is nothing in the legislative history that says they intended this result," Peddie said.
An unusual coalition that brought together union leaders and both Republican and Democratic lawmakers has criticized the ruling, albeit for different reasons. State Rep. Craig Eiland, a Democrat from Galveston, said the court overstepped its authority and "caused chills and shivers among legislators ... who do not want activist courts."
Other critics include relatives of the 15 workers killed in a 2005 BP plant explosion, who in April urged the Legislature to undo the court's ruling. Some of those hurt in the explosion wouldn't have been able to sue, said Eiland, whose district includes Texas City, site of the BP plant explosion.
"If this law had been in place, people ... who were maimed, crippled and burned would have been limited to Texas workers compensation," Eiland said.
The hearing was held at Southern Methodist University's Dedman School of Law. The state supreme court routinely holds hearings at law schools and other sites around the state.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Austin American-Statesman: Texas Supreme Court should reverse decision that hurts workers
The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Oct. 16 on its much criticized Entergy ruling. The court should follow up on the hearing by reversing a ruling that was deeply unfair to injured workers and was called unjustified even by an association of lawyers who represent business owners and insurers.EDITORIAL
AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Editorial Board
Sunday, September 07, 2008
The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Oct. 16 on its much criticized Entergy ruling. The court should follow up on the hearing by reversing a ruling that was deeply unfair to injured workers and was called unjustified even by an association of lawyers who represent business owners and insurers.
The Entergy case involved one of those legal issues that can set listeners to yawning when explained — but when put into practice in the real world, inflicts terrible hardships on the personal lives of people who have been horribly injured while at work.
The legal issue is whether a plant owner who hires a contractor to perform work — maintenance, for example — can escape liability in a lawsuit if one of the contractor's workers is injured on the job.
For years, the answer in Texas has been simple: No. The injured worker could sue the plant owner, submitting a negligence claim to judge and jury. That was true even if the contractor carried workers' compensation insurance — the contractor could not be sued, but the plant owner could.
However, a general contractor could purchase workers' compensation insurance and apply it to any subcontractor's employees it in turn hired to do work at the plant. That way, general contractors were encouraged to carry workers' compensation insurance, which ensured that injured workers would have their medical bills covered and get some of their lost pay covered.
There were proposals to extend immunity to the plant owner over the years, but the Legislature rejected them. The argument against giving plant owners immunity from lawsuits by injured workers was that it would eliminate a powerful incentive for maintaining high safety standards.
Then, Entergy Gulf States Inc., an electric utility, decided to punch out a new loophole. When a contract worker, John Summers, was seriously injured in 2001 at one of its facilities, Entergy claimed status as general contractor and, therefore, immunity to suit. After all, Entergy said, the worker already had workers' compensation insurance from the "subcontractor" that Entergy had paid for.
A district judge agreed with Entergy, but a state appeals court sided with the injured worker, who wanted to sue Entergy for damages.
When the Texas Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for Entergy, it threw labor activists and the legal community that focuses on injured workers into an uproar. Several key legislators of both parties have told the court — whose nine Republicans had promised not to legislate from the bench — that it had clearly ignored legislative intent.
In fact, the Entergy decision was so far removed from settled law that even the Texas Association of Defense Counsel has called on the court to reverse it. The association's members generally represent those being sued — like plant owners.
The court has a chance here to correct itself and should take it. Injured contract workers should be able to take their allegations of negligence to a jury.
Texas Supreme Court should reverse decision that hurts workers
The Texas Supreme Court should reverse its ruling that would limit the right of contract workers to sue for damages when injured on the job.AUSTIN AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Editorial Board
Sunday, September 07, 2008
The Texas Supreme Court will hear oral arguments Oct. 16 on its much criticized Entergy ruling. The court should follow up on the hearing by reversing a ruling that was deeply unfair to injured workers and was called unjustified even by an association of lawyers who represent business owners and insurers.
The Entergy case involved one of those legal issues that can set listeners to yawning when explained — but when put into practice in the real world, inflicts terrible hardships on the personal lives of people who have been horribly injured while at work.
The legal issue is whether a plant owner who hires a contractor to perform work — maintenance, for example — can escape liability in a lawsuit if one of the contractor's workers is injured on the job.
For years, the answer in Texas has been simple: No. The injured worker could sue the plant owner, submitting a negligence claim to judge and jury. That was true even if the contractor carried workers' compensation insurance — the contractor could not be sued, but the plant owner could.
However, a general contractor could purchase workers' compensation insurance and apply it to any subcontractor's employees it in turn hired to do work at the plant. That way, general contractors were encouraged to carry workers' compensation insurance, which ensured that injured workers would have their medical bills covered and get some of their lost pay covered.
There were proposals to extend immunity to the plant owner over the years, but the Legislature rejected them. The argument against giving plant owners immunity from lawsuits by injured workers was that it would eliminate a powerful incentive for maintaining high safety standards.
Then, Entergy Gulf States Inc., an electric utility, decided to punch out a new loophole. When a contract worker, John Summers, was seriously injured in 2001 at one of its facilities, Entergy claimed status as general contractor and, therefore, immunity to suit. After all, Entergy said, the worker already had workers' compensation insurance from the "subcontractor" that Entergy had paid for.
A district judge agreed with Entergy, but a state appeals court sided with the injured worker, who wanted to sue Entergy for damages.
When the Texas Supreme Court ruled 9-0 for Entergy, it threw labor activists and the legal community that focuses on injured workers into an uproar. Several key legislators of both parties have told the court — whose nine Republicans had promised not to legislate from the bench — that it had clearly ignored legislative intent.
In fact, the Entergy decision was so far removed from settled law that even the Texas Association of Defense Counsel has called on the court to reverse it. The association's members generally represent those being sued — like plant owners.
The court has a chance here to correct itself and should take it. Injured contract workers should be able to take their allegations of negligence to a jury.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
KHOU: Justice for sale in Texas?
We all expect our courts to offer a fair and impartial trial. It is, after all, one of the basic demands we make of our society in America. But are the scales of justice in Texas tipping against you and instead, in favor of big corporations? What’s worse, experts say you may be paying the price with lower safety standards. Read and view the 11 News Report at KHOU-Houston
By Mark Greenblatt / 11 News Defenders
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
KHOU-Houston
We all expect our courts to offer a fair and impartial trial. It is, after all, one of the basic demands we make of our society in America. But are the scales of justice in Texas tipping against you and instead,in favor of big corporations?
What’s worse, experts say you may be paying the price with lower safety standards. Jose Herrera liked working at the CITGO refinery, sometimes spending 80 hours a week working -- as many men do at similar plants -- as a contract laborer. But he didn’t mind. He was the breadwinner for his family and for his young son.
But today, Herrera is trapped in a nightmare of a memory of a work accident. One that poured 475-degree petroleum all over his body as he struggled to free himself from a jammed safety harness for what seemed like ages.
“Between seven to 12 minutes,” he said. “I got burned literally up in my head.”
And even after hospital treatment, even months later, he is still trapped in isolation.
“We can’t hug him because he hurts all over,” his wife Hortencia said. “He can’t hug me or hug my little boy.”
And trapped in the worst way possible for a proud working man -- Financially, with seemingly no way out.
11 News: “What is going to happen to your family?”
Jose: “I don’t know.”
11 News: “Are you concerned?”
Jose: “Yes.”
So how could this happen?
Let’s start with March 23, 2005 as the Texas City refinery of BP detonates into flames, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others.
Linda Hunnings remembers that morning, as her husband, a contract worker, “Gave me a kiss and said, ‘Don’t forget baby I am working over today,’ and I said, OK,’” she said.
She never saw him again.
“He used to say that plant was an accident waiting to happen,” Hunnings said.
So, Hunnings and others filed lawsuits against BP. The result: $1.6 billion in total awards, and it rocked corporate Texas.
But not for long.
“The Legislature has repeatedly refused to pass this law,” state Rep. Craig Eiland said.
Eiland says big business had already been pushing a law that would shield them from contract employee accident claims in Texas, but, “Since 1995, there have been five attempts,” he said. “Five times, shot down.”
So, without the legislature’s help, experts say industry began focusing on another possibility: the Texas Supreme Court and the case of Entergy vs. Summers.
It’s where they finally succeeded.
In the case, the judges ruled that if Texas companies bought a certain type of worker’s compensation insurance, they were protected from contract worker lawsuits stemming from injury.
Eiland’s reaction?
“My initial reaction was ‘they didn’t do this,’” he said.
To legislators from both sides of the aisle, the high court had overstepped its bounds.
Eiland: “The judiciary is supposed to interpret the law as it is written.”
11 News: “And what is happening here?”
Eiland: “They are making the law.”
"This decision is leaps and bounds beyond what the legislature intended," said Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a government watchdog group based in Austin. "This is not a small and insignificant ruling, this is sweeping and far reaching. It affects every worker in the state and I believe threatens communities across the state."
So why did the court do it?
“This is supposed to be an impartial panel,” said Andrew Wheat, a member of Texans for Public Justice that follows money in politics.
His conclusion?
“This judicial system has become a joke, a farce,” he said.
Why? Wheat analyzed campaign contributions to Texas Supreme Court justices and he said he found that “some of the biggest donors that came up are old school oil and gas companies.”
Companies, Wheat said that would benefit handsomely from the Court’s recent ruling.
“This is an industry that invested heavily in these justices’ campaigns,” Wheat said.
Take a look for yourself: BP, the Texas Oil and Gas PAC and others with an interest in the ruling gave nearly $750,000 to the justices in the six years leading up to the decision.
We should note that three of the nine justices have been there the full six-year period, while six have not.
And who got the biggest share? Justice Don Willett, the same justice who wrote the Entergy opinion that gives these industries immunity.
But for some?
11 News: “You agree with the Supreme Court’s decision?”
Leo Linbeck Jr.: “Absolutely.”
Linbeck is a founding member of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
“I don’t know why a lawsuit is a necessary ingredient in investigating what happened,” he said.
So we showed him Jose Herrera’s picture.
11 News: “He has no recourse against the people he believes could be responsible. Do you believe this is really the right thing to do?”
Linbeck: “You’re asking me to respond to you in an emotional way about a fact situation. I didn’t make the law.”
Here’s an interesting fact: Two of the largest donations ever made to Justice Willett, the author of the ruling, came from the political action committee for Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
“We have to get money out of the courtroom,” Texans for Public Justice’s Wheat said.
11 News: “They believe this stinks. Your response?”
Linbeck: “Then they ought to hold their nose.”
Which brings us back to Herrera. With the clock now ticking on his two years of workers compensation money.
11 News: “They say your right to sue does not exist anymore. What do you think about that?”
Herrera: “That’s not right.”
11 News: “Why?”
Herrera: “They (treat) us like a piece of tool. We are not a tool. We are human beings.”
Linbeck told 11 News that on a personal basis, he supports the idea of reforming the current system of electing Supreme Court Justices. He said it is “unseemly” for justices to raise money personally for campaigns. However, he said he expects Texans For Lawsuit Reform and others to play by the rules as they are currently written until such reform comes along.
So, what was the Court’s reaction?
In a rare move, it has agreed to rehear the Case of Entergy vs. Summers. A spokesman says that likely will take place in September or October.
From there, the 11 News Defenders were told it could be more than a year before the Court issues its ruling.
Entergy declined comment on this story, citing the pending rehearing of the case.
After two years, Herrera could be eligible for other benefits if he qualifies.
The Texas Supreme Court justices declined comment, but some say any campaign contributions to the court give more of the appearance of impropriety than the real thing.
For example, the Court recently made a controversial ruling in favor of Perry Homes. But in that case, Chief Justice Willett, who received a substantial amount of campaign money from Perry, actually dissented against that judgment.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform said that they've advocated for years to have supreme court justices appointed on merit.
They also deny any impropriety has occurred due to any campaign contributions they've made.
Finally, both Entergy and BP declined comment, but Citgo told us that they strive to provide a safe workplace and say they support Jose Herrera and his family through medical care and income benefits under the Texas Workers Compensation system as provided by law.
They also say they are fully cooperating with state and federal investigations into Herrera’s accident.
Justice for sale in Texas?
State supreme court ruling may leave industrial workers in the cold; was it paid for?By Mark Greenblatt / 11 News Defenders
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
KHOU-Houston
We all expect our courts to offer a fair and impartial trial. It is, after all, one of the basic demands we make of our society in America. But are the scales of justice in Texas tipping against you and instead,in favor of big corporations?
What’s worse, experts say you may be paying the price with lower safety standards. Jose Herrera liked working at the CITGO refinery, sometimes spending 80 hours a week working -- as many men do at similar plants -- as a contract laborer. But he didn’t mind. He was the breadwinner for his family and for his young son.
But today, Herrera is trapped in a nightmare of a memory of a work accident. One that poured 475-degree petroleum all over his body as he struggled to free himself from a jammed safety harness for what seemed like ages.
“Between seven to 12 minutes,” he said. “I got burned literally up in my head.”
And even after hospital treatment, even months later, he is still trapped in isolation.
“We can’t hug him because he hurts all over,” his wife Hortencia said. “He can’t hug me or hug my little boy.”
And trapped in the worst way possible for a proud working man -- Financially, with seemingly no way out.
11 News: “What is going to happen to your family?”
Jose: “I don’t know.”
11 News: “Are you concerned?”
Jose: “Yes.”
So how could this happen?
Let’s start with March 23, 2005 as the Texas City refinery of BP detonates into flames, killing 15 workers and injuring more than 170 others.
Linda Hunnings remembers that morning, as her husband, a contract worker, “Gave me a kiss and said, ‘Don’t forget baby I am working over today,’ and I said, OK,’” she said.
She never saw him again.
“He used to say that plant was an accident waiting to happen,” Hunnings said.
So, Hunnings and others filed lawsuits against BP. The result: $1.6 billion in total awards, and it rocked corporate Texas.
But not for long.
“The Legislature has repeatedly refused to pass this law,” state Rep. Craig Eiland said.
Eiland says big business had already been pushing a law that would shield them from contract employee accident claims in Texas, but, “Since 1995, there have been five attempts,” he said. “Five times, shot down.”
So, without the legislature’s help, experts say industry began focusing on another possibility: the Texas Supreme Court and the case of Entergy vs. Summers.
It’s where they finally succeeded.
In the case, the judges ruled that if Texas companies bought a certain type of worker’s compensation insurance, they were protected from contract worker lawsuits stemming from injury.
Eiland’s reaction?
“My initial reaction was ‘they didn’t do this,’” he said.
To legislators from both sides of the aisle, the high court had overstepped its bounds.
Eiland: “The judiciary is supposed to interpret the law as it is written.”
11 News: “And what is happening here?”
Eiland: “They are making the law.”
"This decision is leaps and bounds beyond what the legislature intended," said Alex Winslow of Texas Watch, a government watchdog group based in Austin. "This is not a small and insignificant ruling, this is sweeping and far reaching. It affects every worker in the state and I believe threatens communities across the state."
So why did the court do it?
“This is supposed to be an impartial panel,” said Andrew Wheat, a member of Texans for Public Justice that follows money in politics.
His conclusion?
“This judicial system has become a joke, a farce,” he said.
Why? Wheat analyzed campaign contributions to Texas Supreme Court justices and he said he found that “some of the biggest donors that came up are old school oil and gas companies.”
Companies, Wheat said that would benefit handsomely from the Court’s recent ruling.
“This is an industry that invested heavily in these justices’ campaigns,” Wheat said.
Take a look for yourself: BP, the Texas Oil and Gas PAC and others with an interest in the ruling gave nearly $750,000 to the justices in the six years leading up to the decision.
We should note that three of the nine justices have been there the full six-year period, while six have not.
And who got the biggest share? Justice Don Willett, the same justice who wrote the Entergy opinion that gives these industries immunity.
But for some?
11 News: “You agree with the Supreme Court’s decision?”
Leo Linbeck Jr.: “Absolutely.”
Linbeck is a founding member of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
“I don’t know why a lawsuit is a necessary ingredient in investigating what happened,” he said.
So we showed him Jose Herrera’s picture.
11 News: “He has no recourse against the people he believes could be responsible. Do you believe this is really the right thing to do?”
Linbeck: “You’re asking me to respond to you in an emotional way about a fact situation. I didn’t make the law.”
Here’s an interesting fact: Two of the largest donations ever made to Justice Willett, the author of the ruling, came from the political action committee for Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
“We have to get money out of the courtroom,” Texans for Public Justice’s Wheat said.
11 News: “They believe this stinks. Your response?”
Linbeck: “Then they ought to hold their nose.”
Which brings us back to Herrera. With the clock now ticking on his two years of workers compensation money.
11 News: “They say your right to sue does not exist anymore. What do you think about that?”
Herrera: “That’s not right.”
11 News: “Why?”
Herrera: “They (treat) us like a piece of tool. We are not a tool. We are human beings.”
Linbeck told 11 News that on a personal basis, he supports the idea of reforming the current system of electing Supreme Court Justices. He said it is “unseemly” for justices to raise money personally for campaigns. However, he said he expects Texans For Lawsuit Reform and others to play by the rules as they are currently written until such reform comes along.
So, what was the Court’s reaction?
In a rare move, it has agreed to rehear the Case of Entergy vs. Summers. A spokesman says that likely will take place in September or October.
From there, the 11 News Defenders were told it could be more than a year before the Court issues its ruling.
Entergy declined comment on this story, citing the pending rehearing of the case.
After two years, Herrera could be eligible for other benefits if he qualifies.
The Texas Supreme Court justices declined comment, but some say any campaign contributions to the court give more of the appearance of impropriety than the real thing.
For example, the Court recently made a controversial ruling in favor of Perry Homes. But in that case, Chief Justice Willett, who received a substantial amount of campaign money from Perry, actually dissented against that judgment.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform said that they've advocated for years to have supreme court justices appointed on merit.
They also deny any impropriety has occurred due to any campaign contributions they've made.
Finally, both Entergy and BP declined comment, but Citgo told us that they strive to provide a safe workplace and say they support Jose Herrera and his family through medical care and income benefits under the Texas Workers Compensation system as provided by law.
They also say they are fully cooperating with state and federal investigations into Herrera’s accident.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Dallas Morning News Editorial: Texas courts' credibility problem
The reputation of our state's judiciary has been tarnished for years. Nothing underscores this point better than the May 2 Texas Supreme Court decision favoring Perry Homes over homeowners Jane and Robert Cull. But what isn't debatable is that the founder of Perry Homes, Bob Perry, is a major donor to the campaigns of the Supreme Court's justices. He, his family and their political action committees have donated more than $250,000 to the nine justices - all Republicans - including those who dissented in the Cull case. Read the editorial at the Dallas Morning News
Friday, May 9, 2008
Dallas Morning News
The reputation of our state's judiciary has been tarnished for years. As then-state Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Phillips told the Legislature all the way back in 2001, when judges owe their jobs to an electoral system dominated by political parties and big campaign donors, their judicial objectivity comes into question.
Nothing underscores this point better than the May 2 Texas Supreme Court decision favoring Perry Homes over homeowners Jane and Robert Cull. The court's decision, overturning two lower courts' rulings to compensate the Culls for a defective home, probably will be debated for years.
But what isn't debatable is that the founder of Perry Homes, Bob Perry, is a major donor to the campaigns of the Supreme Court's justices. He, his family and their political action committees have donated more than $250,000 to the nine justices - all Republicans - including those who dissented in the Cull case.
The justices may have used flawless legal analysis in ruling against the Culls. That's not the point. In the public's eye, their decision is tainted by the fact that they owe their elected positions, at least in part, to Mr. Perry.
He isn't the only big donor with business before the court. Texas trial lawyers who argue directly before the justices also have been huge contributors.
And to add to the credibility problem, three Supreme Court justices are fending off allegations that they abused their campaign funds. And a report yesterday by the judicial watchdog group Texas Watch criticized the court for relying too heavily on anonymous opinions, which effectively reduces the panel's public accountability.
The method of electing Texas judges - from the Supreme Court all the way down - is badly in need of modernization. Campaign donations from special interests should have no place in an independent judiciary.
The state needs a system in which the governor appoints judicial nominees by merit, with Senate confirmation, and voters regularly decide whether or not to retain them. That would help remove partisan politics and make court decisions less suspect.
That's one of several options put forth by Mr. Phillips in 2001. His argument made sense then, and it's no less valid today.
Editorial: Texas courts' credibility problem
Friday, May 9, 2008
Dallas Morning News
The reputation of our state's judiciary has been tarnished for years. As then-state Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Phillips told the Legislature all the way back in 2001, when judges owe their jobs to an electoral system dominated by political parties and big campaign donors, their judicial objectivity comes into question.
Nothing underscores this point better than the May 2 Texas Supreme Court decision favoring Perry Homes over homeowners Jane and Robert Cull. The court's decision, overturning two lower courts' rulings to compensate the Culls for a defective home, probably will be debated for years.
But what isn't debatable is that the founder of Perry Homes, Bob Perry, is a major donor to the campaigns of the Supreme Court's justices. He, his family and their political action committees have donated more than $250,000 to the nine justices - all Republicans - including those who dissented in the Cull case.
The justices may have used flawless legal analysis in ruling against the Culls. That's not the point. In the public's eye, their decision is tainted by the fact that they owe their elected positions, at least in part, to Mr. Perry.
He isn't the only big donor with business before the court. Texas trial lawyers who argue directly before the justices also have been huge contributors.
And to add to the credibility problem, three Supreme Court justices are fending off allegations that they abused their campaign funds. And a report yesterday by the judicial watchdog group Texas Watch criticized the court for relying too heavily on anonymous opinions, which effectively reduces the panel's public accountability.
The method of electing Texas judges - from the Supreme Court all the way down - is badly in need of modernization. Campaign donations from special interests should have no place in an independent judiciary.
The state needs a system in which the governor appoints judicial nominees by merit, with Senate confirmation, and voters regularly decide whether or not to retain them. That would help remove partisan politics and make court decisions less suspect.
That's one of several options put forth by Mr. Phillips in 2001. His argument made sense then, and it's no less valid today.
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Dallas Morning News: Plea violated rights of Houston BP blast victims
Federal prosecutors violated the rights of victims of a deadly 2005 explosion at a BP PLC plant when they didn't consult them about a plea agreement to settle criminal conduct in connection with the blast, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday. But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court did not block the much-criticized plea deal, instead sending the case back to a Houston judge and asking that she fully consider the victims' objections before deciding whether to accept the agreement. Read the article at the Dallas Morning News
By JUAN A. LOZANO / Associated Press
Wednesday, May 8, 2008
HOUSTON — Federal prosecutors violated the rights of victims of a deadly 2005 explosion at a BP PLC plant when they didn't consult them about a plea agreement to settle criminal conduct in connection with the blast, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court did not block the much-criticized plea deal, instead sending the case back to a Houston judge and asking that she fully consider the victims' objections before deciding whether to accept the agreement.
"We are confident that when those objections are considered, this sweetheart plea bargain will be ultimately rejected," David Perry, an attorney for blast victims, said in a statement.
U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle in Houston said his office was ready to proceed with the case.
"We are, however, disappointed by the appellate court's criticism of the government's good faith reliance upon a court's order approving our approach to meet" obligations to consult blast victims about the plea agreement, he said in a statement.
BP spokesman Neil Chapman declined to comment.
The plea deal, which has a BP subsidiary pleading guilty to a violation of the Clean Air Act, includes a $50 million fine and sentences the oil giant to three years' probation for its role in the blast.
BP formally entered its guilty plea during a February court hearing, but a decision on the deal's fate was pending before U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal when blast victims appealed the case.
The explosion, which killed 15 people and injured more than 170, occurred in Texas City, about 40 miles southeast of Houston.
Prosecutors and BP have defended the plea agreement, saying it's the harshest option available in assessing criminal punishment for the blast. A congressional committee is investigating the deal.
Family members of those killed and workers injured by the blast say the fine is insufficient. They argue federal sentencing laws allow the fine to be as high as $3.2 billion.
They also say the plea deal doesn't provide for an independent watchdog to monitor whether BP would meet its safety obligations at the refinery.
Rosenthal earlier this year rejected claims by blast victims that their rights were violated under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Blast victims had wanted the deal rejected because under the act, they should have been notified and consulted about the plea agreement prior to it being announced in November.
Prosecutors had argued it would have been impractical to consult all of the hundreds of victims connected to the blast before a deal was struck and any advance notification might have jeopardized the agreement.
But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit on Wednesday disagreed with prosecutors.
"The number of victims here did not render notice to, or conferring with, the victims to be impracticable, so the victims should have been notified of the ongoing plea discussions and should have been allowed to communicate meaningfully with the government, personally or through counsel, before a deal was struck," the three-judge panel wrote.
However, the appeals court concluded it would not be appropriate for it to order that the plea agreement be rejected, saying blast victims had been allowed to state their objections through a February court hearing, "albeit much too late in the process."
"We conclude that the better course is to deny relief, confident that the district court will take heed that the victims have not been accorded their full rights," the judges wrote.
Perry said he was disappointed the appeals court did not reject the plea deal.
"These victims were first injured by (BP's) illegal conduct, then again by the illegal actions of the U.S. attorney ... and now once again by a ruling effectively approving the illegal conduct of the U.S. attorney and negating an act of Congress," Perry said.
The deal was part of an October agreement by BP to pay $373 million to settle various criminal and civil charges.
The explosion occurred after a piece of equipment called a blowdown drum overfilled with highly flammable liquid hydrocarbons. The excess liquid and vapor hydrocarbons then were vented from the drum and ignited at the startup of the isomerization unit -- a device that boosts the octane in gasoline. Alarms and gauges that were supposed to warn of the overfilled equipment did not work properly.
Court: Plea violated rights of Houston BP blast victims
By JUAN A. LOZANO / Associated Press
Wednesday, May 8, 2008
HOUSTON — Federal prosecutors violated the rights of victims of a deadly 2005 explosion at a BP PLC plant when they didn't consult them about a plea agreement to settle criminal conduct in connection with the blast, a federal appeals court ruled Wednesday.
But the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals court did not block the much-criticized plea deal, instead sending the case back to a Houston judge and asking that she fully consider the victims' objections before deciding whether to accept the agreement.
"We are confident that when those objections are considered, this sweetheart plea bargain will be ultimately rejected," David Perry, an attorney for blast victims, said in a statement.
U.S. Attorney Don DeGabrielle in Houston said his office was ready to proceed with the case.
"We are, however, disappointed by the appellate court's criticism of the government's good faith reliance upon a court's order approving our approach to meet" obligations to consult blast victims about the plea agreement, he said in a statement.
BP spokesman Neil Chapman declined to comment.
The plea deal, which has a BP subsidiary pleading guilty to a violation of the Clean Air Act, includes a $50 million fine and sentences the oil giant to three years' probation for its role in the blast.
BP formally entered its guilty plea during a February court hearing, but a decision on the deal's fate was pending before U.S. District Judge Lee Rosenthal when blast victims appealed the case.
The explosion, which killed 15 people and injured more than 170, occurred in Texas City, about 40 miles southeast of Houston.
Prosecutors and BP have defended the plea agreement, saying it's the harshest option available in assessing criminal punishment for the blast. A congressional committee is investigating the deal.
Family members of those killed and workers injured by the blast say the fine is insufficient. They argue federal sentencing laws allow the fine to be as high as $3.2 billion.
They also say the plea deal doesn't provide for an independent watchdog to monitor whether BP would meet its safety obligations at the refinery.
Rosenthal earlier this year rejected claims by blast victims that their rights were violated under the Crime Victims' Rights Act.
Blast victims had wanted the deal rejected because under the act, they should have been notified and consulted about the plea agreement prior to it being announced in November.
Prosecutors had argued it would have been impractical to consult all of the hundreds of victims connected to the blast before a deal was struck and any advance notification might have jeopardized the agreement.
But a three-judge panel of the 5th Circuit on Wednesday disagreed with prosecutors.
"The number of victims here did not render notice to, or conferring with, the victims to be impracticable, so the victims should have been notified of the ongoing plea discussions and should have been allowed to communicate meaningfully with the government, personally or through counsel, before a deal was struck," the three-judge panel wrote.
However, the appeals court concluded it would not be appropriate for it to order that the plea agreement be rejected, saying blast victims had been allowed to state their objections through a February court hearing, "albeit much too late in the process."
"We conclude that the better course is to deny relief, confident that the district court will take heed that the victims have not been accorded their full rights," the judges wrote.
Perry said he was disappointed the appeals court did not reject the plea deal.
"These victims were first injured by (BP's) illegal conduct, then again by the illegal actions of the U.S. attorney ... and now once again by a ruling effectively approving the illegal conduct of the U.S. attorney and negating an act of Congress," Perry said.
The deal was part of an October agreement by BP to pay $373 million to settle various criminal and civil charges.
The explosion occurred after a piece of equipment called a blowdown drum overfilled with highly flammable liquid hydrocarbons. The excess liquid and vapor hydrocarbons then were vented from the drum and ignited at the startup of the isomerization unit -- a device that boosts the octane in gasoline. Alarms and gauges that were supposed to warn of the overfilled equipment did not work properly.
Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Austin American-Statesman: Donors shouldn't tip scales of justice
Homebuilder Bob Perry has given millions of dollars to state and national political campaigns and candidates, including all nine members of the Texas Supreme Court. Perry hit the jackpot late last week as a divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of his company, Perry Homes, in an $800,000 arbitration case. Perry and his family have donated more than $260,000 to the justices. Read the editorial at the Austin American-Statesman
The Editorial Board| Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Austin American-Statesman
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has railed about state courts being corrupted by large campaign contributions to elected judges. In her next speech about the influence of cash in the courtrooms, she will have a perfect example from Texas.
Homebuilder Bob Perry has given millions of dollars to state and national political campaigns and candidates, including all nine members of the Texas Supreme Court. Perry hit the jackpot late last week as a divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of his company, Perry Homes, in an $800,000 arbitration case. Perry and his family have donated more than $260,000 to the justices.
The court decided against Bob and Jane Cull, who bought a defective home from Perry’s company in 1996. When Perry Homes refused to fix the problems, the Culls sued. Later, they agreed to arbitration and were awarded $800,000.
Perry Homes challenged the award but lost in state district court and lost again on appeal. But in a 5-4 decision, the state Supreme Court overturned the arbitrator’s ruling. A narrow court majority ruled that the Culls benefited by suing first then later filing for arbitration. In a ruling last year, the court said aggrieved homebuyers should go to arbitration.
It is impossible not to be cynical about the poisonous effect of money on justice. Texas is one of only a handful of states that elects its top judges, although 39 states elect at least some of them and judicial races are attracting huge sums everywhere.
The influence of money on the judiciary has long been a problem in Texas. When CBS reported on “Justice for Sale” in 1987, it was the trial lawyers in Texas who made the large donations and reaped the results in favorable decisions. Today, it’s big business - insurance companies, builders and health care providers - but the resulting cynicism is the same.
When thousands of dollars are flowing to judicial candidates, their fairness and impartiality are in doubt. And a ruling like the one favoring a huge donor like Perry undermines the ideal of judicial integrity, even if the decision is on sound legal footing.
Texas isn’t alone in harboring a supreme court that appears to favor special interests. The West Virginia Supreme Court threw out a $50 million judgment against a coal company whose chief executive vacationed in Europe with the court’s chief justice. In a rehearing, the chief justice recused himself, but the decision stood on a 3-2 vote. The deciding justice refused to recuse himself though he had received more than $3 million from the coal company’s executive.
Texas has made only half-hearted attempts to limit the influence of big donors, special interest groups and law firms with clients before the court. It hasn’t worked, and Texas should abandon its practice of having judges run partisan races while accepting campaign money from those with interests before the courts.
Even if the system hasn’t bred actual corruption, it has fed the appearance of it, and that’s just as damaging to the reputation of our judiciary.
If Texas isn’t going to move away from electing judges, it should at least require judges who take large political donations to recuse themselves from cases involving the donors. That simple solution ought to curb self-interested contributors and possibly restore a sense of integrity to state courts.
Donors shouldn't tip scales of justice
The Editorial Board| Tuesday, May 6, 2008
Austin American-Statesman
Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor has railed about state courts being corrupted by large campaign contributions to elected judges. In her next speech about the influence of cash in the courtrooms, she will have a perfect example from Texas.
Homebuilder Bob Perry has given millions of dollars to state and national political campaigns and candidates, including all nine members of the Texas Supreme Court. Perry hit the jackpot late last week as a divided Supreme Court ruled in favor of his company, Perry Homes, in an $800,000 arbitration case. Perry and his family have donated more than $260,000 to the justices.
The court decided against Bob and Jane Cull, who bought a defective home from Perry’s company in 1996. When Perry Homes refused to fix the problems, the Culls sued. Later, they agreed to arbitration and were awarded $800,000.
Perry Homes challenged the award but lost in state district court and lost again on appeal. But in a 5-4 decision, the state Supreme Court overturned the arbitrator’s ruling. A narrow court majority ruled that the Culls benefited by suing first then later filing for arbitration. In a ruling last year, the court said aggrieved homebuyers should go to arbitration.
It is impossible not to be cynical about the poisonous effect of money on justice. Texas is one of only a handful of states that elects its top judges, although 39 states elect at least some of them and judicial races are attracting huge sums everywhere.
The influence of money on the judiciary has long been a problem in Texas. When CBS reported on “Justice for Sale” in 1987, it was the trial lawyers in Texas who made the large donations and reaped the results in favorable decisions. Today, it’s big business - insurance companies, builders and health care providers - but the resulting cynicism is the same.
When thousands of dollars are flowing to judicial candidates, their fairness and impartiality are in doubt. And a ruling like the one favoring a huge donor like Perry undermines the ideal of judicial integrity, even if the decision is on sound legal footing.
Texas isn’t alone in harboring a supreme court that appears to favor special interests. The West Virginia Supreme Court threw out a $50 million judgment against a coal company whose chief executive vacationed in Europe with the court’s chief justice. In a rehearing, the chief justice recused himself, but the decision stood on a 3-2 vote. The deciding justice refused to recuse himself though he had received more than $3 million from the coal company’s executive.
Texas has made only half-hearted attempts to limit the influence of big donors, special interest groups and law firms with clients before the court. It hasn’t worked, and Texas should abandon its practice of having judges run partisan races while accepting campaign money from those with interests before the courts.
Even if the system hasn’t bred actual corruption, it has fed the appearance of it, and that’s just as damaging to the reputation of our judiciary.
If Texas isn’t going to move away from electing judges, it should at least require judges who take large political donations to recuse themselves from cases involving the donors. That simple solution ought to curb self-interested contributors and possibly restore a sense of integrity to state courts.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Justices Rule For No. 1 Individual Campaign Donor; Perry Homes Decision Overturns Two Lower Courts
In Perry Homes V. Robert Cull Texas Supreme Court justices today overturned two lower courts to rule for their No. 1 Individual Donor: Perry Homes founder Bob Perry. Notably, no justices recused themselves from this case involving a major donor. Read More
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Austin American-Statesman: Court should reverse self for workers' sakes
The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its ruling that gave companies new protection from liability for injuries to workers on their property who are not their employees. The court should reverse its earlier ruling in a case involving electric utility Entergy Gulf States because it has misapplied state law and given plant owners less incentive to maintain safe workplaces. Read the editorial at the Austin American-Statesman
By The Editorial Board | Thursday, May 1, 2008
Austin American-Statesman
The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its ruling that gave companies new protection from liability for injuries to workers on their property who are not their employees. The court should reverse its earlier ruling because it has misapplied state law and given plant owners less incentive to maintain safe workplaces.
The case came from Southeast Texas. Entergy Gulf States Inc., an electric utility, hired International Maintenance Corp. to do major construction and maintenance work at its Sabine Station Plant at Bridge City.
One of IMC's workers, John Summers, was seriously injured in April 2001 while working at the plant. He collected workers' compensation benefits but also sued Entergy, accusing it of providing defective equipment .
But Entergy said that, acting as its own general contractor, it had purchased the workers' compensation insurance that covered IMC's workers and thus was immune to Summers' lawsuit. State law allows general contractors to purchase such coverage for its subcontractors. The question was whether the company hiring an outside contractor for work on the company's own facilities can simply call itself a general contractor, buy workers' compensation coverage and thereby obtain legal immunity to suits by injured workers.
Summers argued that state law doesn't allow a plant owner like Entergy to escape liability that way when it uses contract workers. A district judge agreed with Entergy, but a state appeals court sided with Summers.
Last August, in a ruling written by Justice Don Willett, the all-Republican Supreme Court, which has built a solid record of siding with business in its rulings, unanimously ruled for Entergy.
Had this decision been in effect in 2005, when an explosion at a BP refinery at Texas City killed 15 contract workers and injured more than 170 others, those workers and their families might not have been able to hold BP liable, although a federal investigation blamed company cost-cutting for making the plant dangerous. So far, BP has paid or committed to pay more than $2 billion to settle numerous civil claims. (BP, by the way, reported record profits last week of $7.6 billion - just for the first quarter of this year.)
The Texas Legislature - hardly a tool of labor or trial lawyer interests - has considered several times whether to grant "premises owners" like Entergy the ability to purchase workers' compensation insurance and, thus, immunity from lawsuits for contract workers, and it has repeatedly refused to do so.
That's why among those calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its Entergy ruling is a group of state lawmakers who accused the court of "disregarding the express terms of the Legislature's enactments" and violating the separations of powers required by the Texas Constitution.
That legislative group includes Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican whose district reaches into southern Travis County, and Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola. Also signing the friend-of-the-court brief were Sen. Rodney Ellis of Houston and Rep. Craig Eiland of Galveston, both Democrats.
Buried under the legal argument over the Entergy case is John Summers, 48, who - seven years after the accident - is still in constant pain, suffers from spinal problems and cannot use his right arm or hand. A federal administrative law judge has ruled Summers is disabled and qualified for Social Security disability benefits.
Seven years after his accident, Summers is still awaiting his day in court. The Texas Supreme Court should give it to him.
Court should reverse self for workers' sakes
By The Editorial Board | Thursday, May 1, 2008
Austin American-Statesman
The Texas Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider its ruling that gave companies new protection from liability for injuries to workers on their property who are not their employees. The court should reverse its earlier ruling because it has misapplied state law and given plant owners less incentive to maintain safe workplaces.
The case came from Southeast Texas. Entergy Gulf States Inc., an electric utility, hired International Maintenance Corp. to do major construction and maintenance work at its Sabine Station Plant at Bridge City.
One of IMC's workers, John Summers, was seriously injured in April 2001 while working at the plant. He collected workers' compensation benefits but also sued Entergy, accusing it of providing defective equipment .
But Entergy said that, acting as its own general contractor, it had purchased the workers' compensation insurance that covered IMC's workers and thus was immune to Summers' lawsuit. State law allows general contractors to purchase such coverage for its subcontractors. The question was whether the company hiring an outside contractor for work on the company's own facilities can simply call itself a general contractor, buy workers' compensation coverage and thereby obtain legal immunity to suits by injured workers.
Summers argued that state law doesn't allow a plant owner like Entergy to escape liability that way when it uses contract workers. A district judge agreed with Entergy, but a state appeals court sided with Summers.
Last August, in a ruling written by Justice Don Willett, the all-Republican Supreme Court, which has built a solid record of siding with business in its rulings, unanimously ruled for Entergy.
Had this decision been in effect in 2005, when an explosion at a BP refinery at Texas City killed 15 contract workers and injured more than 170 others, those workers and their families might not have been able to hold BP liable, although a federal investigation blamed company cost-cutting for making the plant dangerous. So far, BP has paid or committed to pay more than $2 billion to settle numerous civil claims. (BP, by the way, reported record profits last week of $7.6 billion - just for the first quarter of this year.)
The Texas Legislature - hardly a tool of labor or trial lawyer interests - has considered several times whether to grant "premises owners" like Entergy the ability to purchase workers' compensation insurance and, thus, immunity from lawsuits for contract workers, and it has repeatedly refused to do so.
That's why among those calling on the Supreme Court to reconsider its Entergy ruling is a group of state lawmakers who accused the court of "disregarding the express terms of the Legislature's enactments" and violating the separations of powers required by the Texas Constitution.
That legislative group includes Sen. Jeff Wentworth, a San Antonio Republican whose district reaches into southern Travis County, and Rep. Bryan Hughes, R-Mineola. Also signing the friend-of-the-court brief were Sen. Rodney Ellis of Houston and Rep. Craig Eiland of Galveston, both Democrats.
Buried under the legal argument over the Entergy case is John Summers, 48, who - seven years after the accident - is still in constant pain, suffers from spinal problems and cannot use his right arm or hand. A federal administrative law judge has ruled Summers is disabled and qualified for Social Security disability benefits.
Seven years after his accident, Summers is still awaiting his day in court. The Texas Supreme Court should give it to him.
Monday, April 28, 2008
AP News: Lawmakers look at injured worker ruling
Relatives of those killed in a 2005 BP plant explosion and other industrial accident victims urged the Legislature on Monday to undo a Texas Supreme Court ruling in a high-profile workplace injury case. "If no one is held accountable, then nobody is safe," said Eva Rowe, who lost both parents in the blast at BP's Texas City refinery. "The people that this will affect are working people."
By KELLEY SHANNON
Associated Press
AUSTIN — Relatives of those killed in a 2005 BP plant explosion and other industrial accident victims urged the Legislature on Monday to undo a Texas Supreme Court ruling in a high-profile workplace injury case.
"If no one is held accountable, then nobody is safe," said Eva Rowe, who lost both parents in the blast at BP's Texas City refinery. "The people that this will affect are working people."
State Senate and House committees are hearing testimony about a Texas Supreme Court decision last year that an injured contract worker couldn't sue the worksite company for damages because he was covered by the company's workers' compensation policy.
Critics say the ruling wrongly expanded liability protection for businesses under the workers' comp law.
Some lawmakers and labor leaders say legislators didn't automatically extend such lawsuit immunity to plant owners — that it only applies to companies' direct employees who are covered by workers' comp insurance. The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider the case.
Regardless of what the court does, accident victims and their families say the Legislature needs to address the matter. They contend some workers hurt in the BP explosion, which killed 15 people in March 2005, wouldn't have been able to sue if the court's ruling had been in place.
Some 4,000 lawsuits were filed after the BP refinery explosion. The majority have settled with the London-based company. The company has set aside $2.13 billion to settle lawsuits.
"If you walked a mile in all our shoes — please, please don't let this happen," Linda Hunnings, the widow of BP contract worker Jim Hunnings, said in an emotional news conference at the Texas Capitol.
Jose Herrera, a contract worker who was badly burned in a Citgo plant explosion and came to the Capitol scarred and in a wheelchair, also could be prevented from suing under the court's ruling, said his attorney, Arthur J. Gonzalez.
Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, chairman of the State Affairs Committee, questioned granting a no-fault status for a plant and said that it provides "nothing for the employee."
Leo Linbeck Jr., chairman and chief executive of the construction firm Linbeck Corp., warned against the Legislature trying to manage the way business is conducted.
"I think the Legislature is laboring with whether or not they really want a no-fault workers' comp system," Linbeck said after appearing before the committee. "If you want a no-fault system, then it ought to be truly no-fault."
Houston attorney John Eddie Williams, who has represented people hurt in refinery explosions along the Gulf Coast for years, urged lawmakers to clarify their position and protect injured workers, not unsafe companies.
"We must clear up this problem. The Legislature must make a decision. Do you want to grant immunity to these wrongdoers or do you want to hold them accountable?" he said.
Ralph Dean, whose wife was injured in the BP explosion and whose father-in-law was killed, urged lawmakers to think about blue-collar workers, not just the corporate bottom line.
"We're not talking about a smashed finger here. We're talking about 15 deaths," he said.
In other testimony, the Senate committee heard from business representatives and trial lawyers about how lawsuit limitation laws are working.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform released a study by economist Ray Perryman that says civil lawsuit limits imposed beginning in 1995 have resulted in a $112 billion increase in annual spending and 499,000 new jobs in Texas.
"People are now beginning to trust the law again," said Richard Weekley, chairman of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
Nelson Roach, president-elect of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, disputed the Perryman report results. He questioned the methods used to arrive at the findings.
Lawmakers look at injured worker ruling
By KELLEY SHANNON
Associated Press
AUSTIN — Relatives of those killed in a 2005 BP plant explosion and other industrial accident victims urged the Legislature on Monday to undo a Texas Supreme Court ruling in a high-profile workplace injury case.
"If no one is held accountable, then nobody is safe," said Eva Rowe, who lost both parents in the blast at BP's Texas City refinery. "The people that this will affect are working people."
State Senate and House committees are hearing testimony about a Texas Supreme Court decision last year that an injured contract worker couldn't sue the worksite company for damages because he was covered by the company's workers' compensation policy.
Critics say the ruling wrongly expanded liability protection for businesses under the workers' comp law.
Some lawmakers and labor leaders say legislators didn't automatically extend such lawsuit immunity to plant owners — that it only applies to companies' direct employees who are covered by workers' comp insurance. The Supreme Court has agreed to reconsider the case.
Regardless of what the court does, accident victims and their families say the Legislature needs to address the matter. They contend some workers hurt in the BP explosion, which killed 15 people in March 2005, wouldn't have been able to sue if the court's ruling had been in place.
Some 4,000 lawsuits were filed after the BP refinery explosion. The majority have settled with the London-based company. The company has set aside $2.13 billion to settle lawsuits.
"If you walked a mile in all our shoes — please, please don't let this happen," Linda Hunnings, the widow of BP contract worker Jim Hunnings, said in an emotional news conference at the Texas Capitol.
Jose Herrera, a contract worker who was badly burned in a Citgo plant explosion and came to the Capitol scarred and in a wheelchair, also could be prevented from suing under the court's ruling, said his attorney, Arthur J. Gonzalez.
Sen. Robert Duncan, R-Lubbock, chairman of the State Affairs Committee, questioned granting a no-fault status for a plant and said that it provides "nothing for the employee."
Leo Linbeck Jr., chairman and chief executive of the construction firm Linbeck Corp., warned against the Legislature trying to manage the way business is conducted.
"I think the Legislature is laboring with whether or not they really want a no-fault workers' comp system," Linbeck said after appearing before the committee. "If you want a no-fault system, then it ought to be truly no-fault."
Houston attorney John Eddie Williams, who has represented people hurt in refinery explosions along the Gulf Coast for years, urged lawmakers to clarify their position and protect injured workers, not unsafe companies.
"We must clear up this problem. The Legislature must make a decision. Do you want to grant immunity to these wrongdoers or do you want to hold them accountable?" he said.
Ralph Dean, whose wife was injured in the BP explosion and whose father-in-law was killed, urged lawmakers to think about blue-collar workers, not just the corporate bottom line.
"We're not talking about a smashed finger here. We're talking about 15 deaths," he said.
In other testimony, the Senate committee heard from business representatives and trial lawyers about how lawsuit limitation laws are working.
Texans for Lawsuit Reform released a study by economist Ray Perryman that says civil lawsuit limits imposed beginning in 1995 have resulted in a $112 billion increase in annual spending and 499,000 new jobs in Texas.
"People are now beginning to trust the law again," said Richard Weekley, chairman of Texans for Lawsuit Reform.
Nelson Roach, president-elect of the Texas Trial Lawyers Association, disputed the Perryman report results. He questioned the methods used to arrive at the findings.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
