Results tagged “Guest Alumni Blogger”

By Patrick Kelly, Guest Alumni Blogger

Regarding the crisis in the courts that I discussed in my previous blog post, I have been asked "What is the Bar doing about it?" The answer is: The Bar as an agency of the government can only take limited action; however, it is strongly supporting the work of the Bench-Bar Coalition and the Open Courts Coalition that exist for the sole purpose of keeping the courts open for the public through increased funding. I am on the steering committee of the latter group, chaired by Paul Kiesel and Naill McCarthy, and we are working together to facilitate budget discussions between the various departments of the court.

More importantly, we have been regularly meeting with court officials, representatives of the executive branch and legislators. For example, on March 11, both the BBC and the OCC traveled to Sacramento to meet with legislators and support the court by attending the Chief Justice's State of the Court address. I personally met with many legislators, including the chair of the Assembly Judiciary Committee, to underscore the crisis and secure full funding for our courts. I am pleased to say that everyone with whom we met understands the importance of the issue to their constituents and agrees we are at risk of losing many of the benefits of our justice system. To a person they support increased funding for the courts.

By Brian S. Kabateck '89, Guest Alumni Blogger

Most lawyers don't know that in 1975 Governor Brown signed a law that radically changed medical malpractice litigation in California. That law, known as MICRA (Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act), was born in a time when most doctors were in private practice and the insurance industry was largely uncontrolled and financially crushing doctors by boosting malpractice premiums. Among other reforms, MICRA capped any pain and suffering award at $250,000. In the 38 years since MICRA became law, there has been no change whatsoever in the $250,000 cap - and during the same timeframe, inflation has dramatically affected the value of $250,000. In fact, if you apply a basic cost of living factor for inflation, that same $250,000 would now approach approximately $1.1 million. While under MICRA there is no artificial cap on economic losses such as medical care, life care and lost earning, its $250,000 cap on non-economic damages intended to offset the real costs of human suffering creates an unfair situation in cases involving the loss of a child, a non-income earning spouse or a retired person. Quite simply, the life of a child lost because of medical error is only worth $250,000 in California. Outrageous!

Consider also that the entire practice of medicine has changed in the last 38 years. Most Californians who are insured get their medical care though managed care like an HMO or Kaiser. Gone are the days when private practitioners where the norm. Many patients feel like doctors are restricted in making decisions by administrators and other people who are not doctors but are often making the decisions for them. Patient safety is a serious concern in the United States today. It is estimated that more than 300,000 people die every year from medical errors. To put that number into context, medical errors are the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer. It's the equivalent of two full 747s crashing every day. In California, an estimated 37,500 people die from medical errors every year. Meanwhile, doctors have a more lenient discipline system than lawyers; many doctors go unchecked while wrestling with addiction to alcohol and prescription drugs. The media seem to be reporting stories every day of serious medical errors and negligence. Michael Jackson is the most famous victim of medical negligence.

This month, we are delighted to roll out what will be a regular feature of our blog: a guest alumni blogger. Our alumni network at Loyola is an integral part of our law school. And I can think of no one better to be our inaugural guest alumni blogger than Brian Kabateck. Brian is founding and managing partner at Kabateck Brown Kellner LLP. He is an important voice in consumer rights and the current president of the Consumer Attorneys of California. He is also a good friend of our law school and someone whom we are proud to call our own. Over the next month, we look forward to his observations on consumer protection and other areas.

--Associate Dean Michael Waterstone

By Brian S. Kabateck '89, Guest Alumni Blogger

In a mix of news both bad and slightly less bad, the governor's proposed 2013-14 state budget slashes $200 million in court construction funding but mostly maintains the status quo for court operations already battered by years of deep cuts. The governor's finance team is to be commended for avoiding deep operational cuts that would have devastated California's courts. However, the loss of $200 million in construction money needed to maintain the state's aging court infrastructure amounts to more bad news for the justice system. Even though the budget proposal appeared to spare the courts from a fresh round of deep operational cuts for 2013-14, the system is already reeling from $1.2 billion in General Fund cuts over the past five years.

At first blush, the governor's new budget appears to maintain the status quo, but with the courts absorbing more than $1 billion in cuts over the past five years, the status quo isn't acceptable. The status quo has been a disaster. A prime example is in Los Angeles County, which during the current fiscal year has been forced to make upwards of $85 million in cuts to programs that have resulted in the ongoing closure of 10 full courthouses scattered around the region and other operational changes that have the net effect of creating long lines for basic services and slowing the administration of justice. The old axiom is justice delayed is justice denied. Well, lately there has been a lot of justice being denied all over the state.

The cuts of recent years have hit especially hard at some of the state's most vulnerable citizens - women, children, the poor, veterans, the disabled - who utilize family law and other specialty-court operations that have been among the hardest hit by years of budgetary slashing. We are facing a crisis. Courts are an important safety net for society, protecting our most vulnerable. This crisis is about real people who need help solving real problems. Even the most basic functions like paying a ticket or resolving a rental dispute have been turned into unbelievable inconveniences that cost average citizens both time and money. Staffing cuts at many courthouses have led to swelling lines and frayed tempers as the public has tried to tap the most basic services. In Los Angeles, people queued up to settle traffic tickets have in some instances been turned away at day's end and told to come back the next day. Such problems stand to grow even worse as the county grapples with more than $150 million in court cuts in the last couple years. Already, 10 courthouses in Los Angeles County are in the process of being shut down and services are increasingly being centralized in a single courthouse, threatening to make a bad situation even worse.