Judicial Term Limits, Death Penalty Bills Clear Final House Committee Votes

February 21, 2017/in SaintPetersblog

Judicial term limits, death penalty bills clear final House committee votes

MICHAEL MOLINE – February 21, 2017

Bills that would require unanimous jury votes to impose the death penalty, and ask voters whether to impose term limits on appellate judges, were headed to the House floor following their approval Tuesday by the House Judiciary Committee.

The death penalty bill attracted a single “no” vote, and that was from Democrat Joe Geller, who said he would never again support any proposal that would “keep the horror of a death penalty.”

The judicial term limits bill passed on a vote of 11-8. The only Republicans to vote against it were Jay Fant and George Moraitis Jr.

The committee also approved HB 65, which would allow victims of terrorist acts to sue perpetrators and their enablers in state court; and HB 301, requiring the Florida Supreme Court to report each year to the the governor, attorney general, and legislative leaders the number of cases still pending 180 days after oral argument.

HB 527, the death penalty bill, answers qualms by the Florida Supreme Court about putting people to death absent unanimous jury recommendations. In October, the court struck down a law allowing executions upon 10-2 jury votes.

Only Monday, the court said executions could proceed in cases where that wasn’t a factor.

“We’ve had paralysis in our death penalty cases until yesterday,” said sponsor Chris Sprowls, who chairs the committee.

The Palm Harbor Republican said that, when he was a prosecutor, uncertainty regarding the penalty for murder was painful to victims’ families.

In sending the bill to the floor, “we would do just our small role for these families, in ensuring we have a death penalth statute that is constitutional, legal, and that these cases can move forward.”

The committee voted after death penalty opponents — including a man exonerated after serving on death row, and the mother of a murder victim — argued for abolition of capital punishment.

HJR 1, the term limits bill by Eustis Republican Jennifer Sullivan, would need approval by three-fifths of the House and Senate to appear on the ballot, where it would become a constitutional amendment upon approval by 60 percent of the voters.

http://saintpetersblog.com/house-judiciary/

Drive for Assignment of Benefits Reform Picks Up Steam

February 15, 2017/in SaintPetersblog

Drive for assignment of benefits reform picks up steam

MICHAEL MOLINE
Feb 15, 2017, 7:10 pm

The prospect that a national rating firm might downgrade Florida insurance companies because of rising costs linked to assignment of benefits agreements has lit a fire under advocates of reforming those contracts.

“This issue is having a real effect on the pocketbooks of working Floridians and it’s time we take steps to clean up the process,” state Rep. Ben Diamond said in a written statement Wednesday.

“Homeowners deserve a real, consumer-driven solution that ensures that legitimate claims are paid while putting a stop to the bad actors who are driving up the cost of property insurance for all Floridians,” the St. Peterburg Democrat said.

He pointed to a report in the Miami Herald that Demotech Inc. was about to downgrade as many of 15 of the 57 Florida insurers it rates from “A” to “B” on financial stability.

The move could put mortgages at risk for thousand of homeowner because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac require “A” ratings on insurance carried by its borrowers, the Herald reported.

Diamond sits on the Civil Justice & Claims Subcommittee, which is debating restricting the ability to use AOBs to file lawsuits against insurers to policyholders, as opposed to contractors to whom they might assign insurance benefits.

Insurance Commissioner David Altmaier has endorsed this approach.

Earlier this week, the Florida Justice Reform Institute issued a report finding that the number of AOB-related lawsuits grew by nearly 300 percent between 2010 and 2016, and comprised 54 percent of all lawsuits filed last year.

The Consumer Protection Coalition, representing the Florida Chamber of Commerce, insurance companies, and other business interests, pointed to the institute’s report to underline the need for reform.

“For most Floridians, their home is their biggest investment. But AOB fraud and abuse – and the high insurance rate increases it is causing – is quickly making home ownership more expensive for many working families,” coalition spokeswoman Carolyn Johnson said.

“For some low-income families, AOB abuse may even put home ownership out of reach. This report clearly documents that state legislators must reign in the AOB lawsuits, and fix the problem with the one-way attorney fee statute.”

That law allows policyholders to sue their insurers without winding up liable for defense attorney fees, but contractors with AOBs have also used it.

“It is imperative that we work to address the cost-drivers plaguing the system head on this session so hardworking Floridians can have some relief. Now is the time to protect our Florida homeowners from AOB abuse,” said Logan McFaddin, of the Property Casualty Insurers Association of America.

“Florida’s consumers are paying more while AOB abuse goes unchecked,” said Michael Carlson, president of the Personal Insurance Federation of Florida.

“We’re seeing that the same kind of AOB abuse that drives up costs and threatens home ownership is also a growing issue in replacing auto glass that is alleged to be cracked or damaged. We need reforms that keep policyholders in control of the policies they bought and paid for. The time for legislative action to protect consumers is now.”

http://saintpetersblog.com/aob-rating/

Appeals Court Upholds Disputed Part of State Medical Malpractice Law

October 14, 2014/in SaintPetersblog

Appeals court upholds disputed part of state medical malpractice law

by Phil Ammann – October 14, 2014

On Friday, a federal appeals court upheld part of Florida’s divisive medical-malpractice law, ruling that it does not violate requirements for shielding patient privacy.

Three judges of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned last year’s decision from a Tallahassee federal judge.

The decision was a success for the Republican-led Legislature, the Florida Medical Association and other groups that lobbied heavily in the 2013 legislative session to revise the state’s medical-malpractice system.

Under dispute was part of the law allowing “ex parte communications” during medical-malpractice cases. Before filing a malpractice claim, patients are required to sign a form authorizing such communications.

Ex-parte communications allow attorneys representing a doctor in malpractice cases to get personal health information about the patient bringing the suit. Information could come a variety of sources, such as other doctors treating the patient.

Another contention is that the law permits those disclosures without the presence of the patient’s attorney.

Last year, U.S. District Judge Robert Hinkle ruled that the law could lead to violations of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.

Known as HIPAA, the federal law attempts to restrict disclosure of personal medical information, unless under certain circumstances.

The appeals court disagreed, citing the authorization forms signed by patients.

In the original suit, plaintiff Glen Murphy accused Madison physician Adolfo C. Dulay of negligence.

A 36-page decision by Judge Frank Hull, joined by judges Stanley Marcus and James Hill, said:

“Murphy and others like him voluntarily choose to seek redress for grievances through Florida’s judicial system. By enacting (the section of the malpractice law), the state conditioned an individual’s ability to use a state-provided resource to advance medical negligence claims — the state judicial system — upon that individual’s executing a limited HIPAA authorization in a form that complies with HIPAA’s requirements. An individual retains the choice whether to file suit, and therefore whether to sign the authorization form.”

Ex-parte communications became the foundation of a major medical-malpractice lobbying battle during the 2013 session’ plaintiff’s attorneys fought the proposal saying it would crush patient privacy.

Supporters call it a fairness issue, since ex-parte communications gives defense attorneys access to information that attorneys for plaintiffs’ can review. In addition, they claim the information could aid defense attorneys in making quicker decisions to either settle or advance a case.

“The legislature intended to give plaintiffs and defendants in medical liability lawsuits equal access to the same medical fact witnesses,” said William Large, president of the Florida Justice Reform Institute. “Now that the Court has agreed that the required written authorization form is fully HIPAA compliant, doctors who face the specter of defending their reputations will no longer be at a disadvantage.”

http://saintpetersblog.com/appeals-court-upholds-disputed-part-state-medical-malpractice-law/

Drive for assignment of benefits reform picks up steam

Florida Justice Reform Institute

Site Links