Kindly point out exactly what is wrong with this bill. Explain.
AN ACT relating to professional licensing; providing that a natural
person has a right to engage in a lawful occupation free
from a substantial burden imposed by an occupational
regulation; providing that a natural person may assert the
right to engage in a lawful occupation as a defense in any
judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the
person; authorizing a natural person to bring an action
against a governmental entity or regulatory body seeking
to enforce an occupational regulation; and providing other
matters properly relating thereto.
I prefer to know that my doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, teachers, etc, etc are qualified to engage in their respective professions. I don't think "the free market" is really going to help that first person who dies or has his house collapse because the market has has an opportunity to evaluate whether or not a particular natural person is an idiot or a genius.
So when the relevant licensing board goes after someone for practicing as a doctor or engineer without a license, that person can't make the loony-tunes argument that they have a natural right to make a living, and that since the market is best able to regulate against loony tunes posing as a doctor or engineer, further regulation by the licensing board violates NRS 622 (assuming the loony tune AB269 becomes law)? Because, I gotta tell you, that's exactly the type of argument AB269 allows.
Guest
Anonymous
March 16, 2015 4:30 pm
Oh for crying out loud. Fellow Republicans, this is why we can't have nice things.
Capping recovery for drivers without insurance directly targets minorities and immigrants, and the Republicans know it. Repubigots need to slow down and take in the sweet smell of justice. The insurance industry is pushing this bill using its clown puppets in the legislature. That is to be expected. However, it's the Repubigots who will end up holding the bag on the next election cycle. Slow down. Slow down. Don't be a clown.
Guest
Anonymous
March 16, 2015 4:41 pm
99% of people who advocate for "tort reform" have no fu@cking I idea what a "tort" is and couldn't define it if their lives and the lives of their children depended on it. "Torts" are one of the few avenues regular people have into our civil courts. What percentage of the population can afford an hourly attorney for full blown litigation? 5%? 2%? I am a Republican, but let's call this what it is. Certain businesses and industries want to exempt themselves from liability for their mistakes and fu@k ups, at the expense of the people they hurt. So they invest in some Legislators and get them to change the rules of the game in their favor.
I agree. People complain to me all the time about how much doctors have to pay in malpractice insurance (most of these people aren't doctors themselves and probably have no idea) because of all the "frivolous lawsuits." I tell them that the next time a doctor screws up when treating them, good luck because it's a) close to impossible to find a lawyer willing to do medical malpractice, b) difficult to find a doctor to prepare an affidavit prior to commencing litigation, and c) damages are capped by statute, all thanks to tort reform.
And all the doctors I know are still doing pretty well for themselves.
Guest
Anonymous
March 16, 2015 4:55 pm
I have a natural right to do brain surgery if I want to?
I am going to contribubute to Chevalier because I'm so irritated that Leung littered the entire valley with her campaign signs a whole election cycle before she is up for re-election. I don't practice in Muni court so I hadn't been following the election in November very closely. I was initially mad that everyone else had taken down their signs until I realizied that she wasn't even in the November election. What an a-hole.
1:22 is correct. This is municipal — city — election not county or state so if that's all you have against Leung then you need to reevaluate! I think she does a good job and should be retained.
To be fair, the well-funded NJA (previously NTLA) pac committee took its pet causes too far when it had the votes (see NRS Chapter 40, for example). This is just the "pro-business" lobby having its day, now that it has the votes. They're trying to rub the trial lawyers' noses in it.
The pendulum will swing back. NJA (and probably some defense attorneys) will dig deep to get their guys elected next time. It won't be tough; it's not like having extremists like Fiore running things is sustainable.
Here's the good thing for us as lawyers: whatever the legislature takes away, judges can give back. And the clowns in Carson City have little sway where Nevada's beloved judicial elections are concerned. Don Eglet and his Capos will see to it that the courts aren't affected by these legislative rascals. The sky isn't falling. Insurance and big business versus trial lawyers is an old rivalry.
Maybe, but to push back it will require Democrats controlling both houses and the Governor's Mansion, impossible until at least the 2019 session, and likely longer.
It took a while for the right wingers to get their game set up; now they're playing it. If the lefties want to push back, they'll need organization and patience. Instead of us wringing our hands, let's do something. Our jobs are on the line here. These crazies want to shut down our courthouses!
A bill to prevent uninsured drivers from winning damages for pain and suffering caused by an MVA makes sense. Too many uninsured drivers on our roads now, a windfall to the lawbreakers is not fair to those following the law.
Assume the injured, uninsured driver is not at fault – thus, the recovery from his insurance would be the same as if he had taken out a minimal liability-only policy. What public policy is served by barring his access to non-economic damages?
11:46 – Don't be so naïve; there is no public policy served. This creates a windfall for an insurance carrier for each fortunate situation in which its insured mows down an uninsured plaintiff. They should call this legislation: "lots of harm, no foul".
I used it for a year and found it to be a waste of money. If you plan on doing crazy law, i.e., low level family law, domestic violence and DUI, it might be okay, but you can't compete with billboard attorneys for big volume. Every once in a while, a serviceable case might come in. I literally bagged exactly one client for a minor matter, and he ended up stiffing me on the final bill. YMMV
There might be some value for you if your goal is to pound civil rights litigation like Cal Potter. The crazies always seem to have some cop or truancy officer violating their civil rights while executing warrants or otherwise enforcing laws. There's money in it.
Guest
Anonymous
March 16, 2015 8:02 pm
Obviously, Plaintiffs' attorneys are not happy with these proposed changes, but it seems that the Defense attorneys would be pissed off too. Is there a single lawyer in this state that would benefit from this stuff?
Believe it or not, some attorneys care about their clients' interests beyond their own opportunity to profit from their clients' misfortunes.
Granted, a few of these proposals are over the top. But several only bring Nevada in line with the majority of other jurisdictions, like reforms to joint and several liability. And the proposal about record disclosure to insurance companies is a direct result of gamesmanship by the plaintiffs' bar to set traps for "bad faith" actions.
The CO's shot another one to death up at High Desert. This is becoming a real problem in Nevada.
Guest
Anonymous
March 17, 2015 3:58 am
Good question 1:02 – I have often wondered why some defense attorneys (full disclosure: I do about 75% plaintiffs and 25% defense) support tort reform. Some measures for which they advocate would likely mean the end of PI practice (plaintiff and defense). In this particular legislature, however, I think the attacks are more pointed and would just tip the scales in favor of big insurance. SB160 seeks to adopt common law duty of care to trespassers and all but ends the attractive nuisance doctrine. SB161 limits products liability actions so that you can only go after manufacturer, not seller. SB162 is particularly troubling – it provides that insurance companies do not have to disclose policy limits unless they receive a HIPAA with a COMPLETE medical provider list or if they are in receipt of ALL medical records. I can hear State Farm standard response now, "your list is incomplete…these are not all the records." If by chance they are right (almost impossible to have complete list when treatment is substantial), they can sue you (yes, you the attorney) and be awarded their attorneys' fees. How will this reform tort law? Rather than negotiate pre-litigation, plaintiffs will file actions on any case in which minimum policy limits are insufficient, i.e. it will create MORE lawsuits, not less.
There are also rumors that the legislature wants to consider capping contingency fees for plaintiffs attorneys. This isn't tort reform – this is government regulation of private enterprise. The same type of regulations that these legislators' federal counterparts argue against being placed on Wall Street based upon free market principles.
The real problem is each of these seeks to amend the state constitution, which means to overturn them the Democrats need to take over super majority in house and senate. That may take a while. This is a real problem…contact your legislators and let them know you don't support these measures.
Re: AB269 — Almost snorted coffee while reading that bill because I was laughing so hard.
Is it silly season already in the legislature? Don't they have "No Shariah Law in Nevada" bills to consider? Or gun rights for kindergarteners?
Kindly point out exactly what is wrong with this bill. Explain.
AN ACT relating to professional licensing; providing that a natural
person has a right to engage in a lawful occupation free
from a substantial burden imposed by an occupational
regulation; providing that a natural person may assert the
right to engage in a lawful occupation as a defense in any
judicial or administrative proceeding brought against the
person; authorizing a natural person to bring an action
against a governmental entity or regulatory body seeking
to enforce an occupational regulation; and providing other
matters properly relating thereto.
Could it be that buying recreational marijuana at every gas station/convenience store could be on the horizon if this bill passes?
"I'll have a gallon of gas on pump #9 and $16.50 worth of dirt weed please."
I prefer to know that my doctors, engineers, lawyers, accountants, teachers, etc, etc are qualified to engage in their respective professions. I don't think "the free market" is really going to help that first person who dies or has his house collapse because the market has has an opportunity to evaluate whether or not a particular natural person is an idiot or a genius.
I think that it's pretty clear that the target of this bill isn't doctors, engineers, pharmacists, but rather hair stylists and interior decorators.
So when the relevant licensing board goes after someone for practicing as a doctor or engineer without a license, that person can't make the loony-tunes argument that they have a natural right to make a living, and that since the market is best able to regulate against loony tunes posing as a doctor or engineer, further regulation by the licensing board violates NRS 622 (assuming the loony tune AB269 becomes law)? Because, I gotta tell you, that's exactly the type of argument AB269 allows.
Oh for crying out loud. Fellow Republicans, this is why we can't have nice things.
Capping recovery for drivers without insurance directly targets minorities and immigrants, and the Republicans know it. Repubigots need to slow down and take in the sweet smell of justice. The insurance industry is pushing this bill using its clown puppets in the legislature. That is to be expected. However, it's the Repubigots who will end up holding the bag on the next election cycle. Slow down. Slow down. Don't be a clown.
99% of people who advocate for "tort reform" have no fu@cking I idea what a "tort" is and couldn't define it if their lives and the lives of their children depended on it. "Torts" are one of the few avenues regular people have into our civil courts. What percentage of the population can afford an hourly attorney for full blown litigation? 5%? 2%? I am a Republican, but let's call this what it is. Certain businesses and industries want to exempt themselves from liability for their mistakes and fu@k ups, at the expense of the people they hurt. So they invest in some Legislators and get them to change the rules of the game in their favor.
I agree. People complain to me all the time about how much doctors have to pay in malpractice insurance (most of these people aren't doctors themselves and probably have no idea) because of all the "frivolous lawsuits." I tell them that the next time a doctor screws up when treating them, good luck because it's a) close to impossible to find a lawyer willing to do medical malpractice, b) difficult to find a doctor to prepare an affidavit prior to commencing litigation, and c) damages are capped by statute, all thanks to tort reform.
And all the doctors I know are still doing pretty well for themselves.
I have a natural right to do brain surgery if I want to?
Leung, please. Chevalier is weird.
I am going to contribubute to Chevalier because I'm so irritated that Leung littered the entire valley with her campaign signs a whole election cycle before she is up for re-election. I don't practice in Muni court so I hadn't been following the election in November very closely. I was initially mad that everyone else had taken down their signs until I realizied that she wasn't even in the November election. What an a-hole.
Election is June 2 I believe so not sure what you are talking about.
1:22 is correct. This is municipal — city — election not county or state so if that's all you have against Leung then you need to reevaluate! I think she does a good job and should be retained.
Speaking of which, when is Matt Harter going to remove his red campaign sign at El Capitan and N. Craig, his election ended in November 2014?
Early voting for the municipal primaries starts Saturday, March 21.
Judge Leung is the best choice.
To be fair, the well-funded NJA (previously NTLA) pac committee took its pet causes too far when it had the votes (see NRS Chapter 40, for example). This is just the "pro-business" lobby having its day, now that it has the votes. They're trying to rub the trial lawyers' noses in it.
The pendulum will swing back. NJA (and probably some defense attorneys) will dig deep to get their guys elected next time. It won't be tough; it's not like having extremists like Fiore running things is sustainable.
Here's the good thing for us as lawyers: whatever the legislature takes away, judges can give back. And the clowns in Carson City have little sway where Nevada's beloved judicial elections are concerned. Don Eglet and his Capos will see to it that the courts aren't affected by these legislative rascals. The sky isn't falling. Insurance and big business versus trial lawyers is an old rivalry.
Maybe, but to push back it will require Democrats controlling both houses and the Governor's Mansion, impossible until at least the 2019 session, and likely longer.
It took a while for the right wingers to get their game set up; now they're playing it. If the lefties want to push back, they'll need organization and patience. Instead of us wringing our hands, let's do something. Our jobs are on the line here. These crazies want to shut down our courthouses!
A bill to prevent uninsured drivers from winning damages for pain and suffering caused by an MVA makes sense. Too many uninsured drivers on our roads now, a windfall to the lawbreakers is not fair to those following the law.
Assume the injured, uninsured driver is not at fault – thus, the recovery from his insurance would be the same as if he had taken out a minimal liability-only policy. What public policy is served by barring his access to non-economic damages?
11:46 – Don't be so naïve; there is no public policy served. This creates a windfall for an insurance carrier for each fortunate situation in which its insured mows down an uninsured plaintiff. They should call this legislation: "lots of harm, no foul".
Wouldn't limiting someone's recovery in this context by unconstitutional ?
Off topic, but just wondering: Has anyone used the state bar's client referral service? If so, was it a complete disaster?
An attorney in my office used it and got a lot of wackos.
I used it for a year and found it to be a waste of money. If you plan on doing crazy law, i.e., low level family law, domestic violence and DUI, it might be okay, but you can't compete with billboard attorneys for big volume. Every once in a while, a serviceable case might come in. I literally bagged exactly one client for a minor matter, and he ended up stiffing me on the final bill. YMMV
The information is very much appreciated. Thanks
There might be some value for you if your goal is to pound civil rights litigation like Cal Potter. The crazies always seem to have some cop or truancy officer violating their civil rights while executing warrants or otherwise enforcing laws. There's money in it.
Obviously, Plaintiffs' attorneys are not happy with these proposed changes, but it seems that the Defense attorneys would be pissed off too. Is there a single lawyer in this state that would benefit from this stuff?
Believe it or not, some attorneys care about their clients' interests beyond their own opportunity to profit from their clients' misfortunes.
Granted, a few of these proposals are over the top. But several only bring Nevada in line with the majority of other jurisdictions, like reforms to joint and several liability. And the proposal about record disclosure to insurance companies is a direct result of gamesmanship by the plaintiffs' bar to set traps for "bad faith" actions.
http://www.fox5vegas.com/story/28289648/inmates-death-ruled-a-homicide
The CO's shot another one to death up at High Desert. This is becoming a real problem in Nevada.
Good question 1:02 – I have often wondered why some defense attorneys (full disclosure: I do about 75% plaintiffs and 25% defense) support tort reform. Some measures for which they advocate would likely mean the end of PI practice (plaintiff and defense). In this particular legislature, however, I think the attacks are more pointed and would just tip the scales in favor of big insurance. SB160 seeks to adopt common law duty of care to trespassers and all but ends the attractive nuisance doctrine. SB161 limits products liability actions so that you can only go after manufacturer, not seller. SB162 is particularly troubling – it provides that insurance companies do not have to disclose policy limits unless they receive a HIPAA with a COMPLETE medical provider list or if they are in receipt of ALL medical records. I can hear State Farm standard response now, "your list is incomplete…these are not all the records." If by chance they are right (almost impossible to have complete list when treatment is substantial), they can sue you (yes, you the attorney) and be awarded their attorneys' fees. How will this reform tort law? Rather than negotiate pre-litigation, plaintiffs will file actions on any case in which minimum policy limits are insufficient, i.e. it will create MORE lawsuits, not less.
There are also rumors that the legislature wants to consider capping contingency fees for plaintiffs attorneys. This isn't tort reform – this is government regulation of private enterprise. The same type of regulations that these legislators' federal counterparts argue against being placed on Wall Street based upon free market principles.
The real problem is each of these seeks to amend the state constitution, which means to overturn them the Democrats need to take over super majority in house and senate. That may take a while. This is a real problem…contact your legislators and let them know you don't support these measures.
^^^ what he said.
Hate to be a Debbie Downer, but contacting your Legislator now is not going to do anything. The wheels were set in motion last November.