SB 113 (Sponsored by Senator Romero) has passed the Utah legislature prohibiting minors (under 18) from using cell phones while driving a vehicle. Several exceptions are given which are as follows:

1) when reporting a medical emergency
2) when reporting a safety hazard
3) when reporting a criminal activity
4) when speaking with a parent or guardian

The bill will now go to the Governor for his signature. The sponsor believes this bill will reduce accidents.

If you have been a reader of this legal blog, you’ve seen some examples of minors texting while driving and the life-changing accidents that have occurred as a result. Texting while driving is already banned in Utah and is a very dangerous thing to attempt to engage in

On Friday, November 6, eight Utah State Legislators met at our office in Sandy, Utah for a special breakfast with the Firm’s management and attorney team. Craig Swapp led a spirited discussion about pending insurance arbitration and Utah medical malpractice legislation which is coming before the legislature early next year. “We’re appreciative of the time our legislators took to meet with us and to listen to our perspectives and concerns,” says Craig Swapp. “I believe they left with a balanced view of the issues before them.”

Click this link to download a pdf of the handouts and discussion material.

Breakfast with Legislators

One of our employees has written up a summary of a citizens initiative ethics bill that would cause major problems for the state of Utah. Please take a look at it here and help spread the word.
http://blog.oaknorton.com/2009/11/utah-ethics-bombshell-goodbye-utah-if-this-passes

One of the issues that consistently comes up in legislative sessions is the idea that we can save all kinds of time and money in our legal system by implementing tort reform. An excellent article on this subject appeared recently in the New York Times. Here’s a link to the article and a couple of quotes.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/would-tort-reform-lower-health-care-costs/

Tom Baker, a professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law and author of “The Medical Malpractice Myth,” spoke with freelance writer Anne Underwood.

Q. But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.
A. That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

Q. If medical malpractice doesn’t explain the high costs of our health-care system, what does?
A. A variety of things. The American population is aging. We’ve had advances in technology that are expensive. We’re also a rich nation, and the richer you get, the more money you spend on health care. And compared to other countries, we have heavy administrative costs from the private-insurance system.

Couple this interview with one recent case from Kansas where a woman went in to have her right ovary removed but the doctor removed her left ovary. Due to an award cap, the judge struck down the jury decision of $759,680 for current and future medical bills, pain and suffering, inability to perform services as a spouse, and other non-economic losses, and instead awarded the state cap of $250,000. A jury of peers examined all the proper evidence and determined a fair amount, and this law now usurps their role in calculating proper damages on a case by case basis.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2009/oct/25/botched-surgery-case-test-pain-suffering-limits

The Washington Post (9/8, Vick) reports, “Rescission — the technical term for canceling coverage on grounds that the company was misled — is often considered among the most offensive practices in an insurance industry that already suffers from a distinct lack of popularity among the American public. Tales of cancellations have fueled outrage among regulators, analysts, doctors and, not least, plaintiffs’ lawyers, who describe insurers as too eager to shed patients to widen profits.” According to the Post, “Those sentiments have become central to the healthcare debate. … Each of the bills pending in Congress would prevent insurers from rejecting clients because of preexisting conditions.”