In a recent newsletter from Congressman Cook, he brags about voting for HR 758, the Lawsuit Abuse Reduction Act of 2015. He really should be ashamed of himself.
First, the law will bring from England its laws on who pays attorney fees in litigation (maybe Cook should run for the British Parliament, not Congress again!)--one which requires the loser to pay his or her own attorney AND the attorney of the side that wins. The American rule requires each side to bear their own attorney fees [absent some special statute or contractual provision]
Second, this bill is, like all of Cook's votes, sided in favor of large corporations and companies. How? If we are going to shift to a system of loser paying attorney fees, we should make ALL parties who prevail on frivolous claims (including plaintiffs who defeat frivolous defenses) entitled to attorney fees ON TOP of whatever damages they get--HR 758 only gives defendants (typically large companies) attorney fees.
From the American Bar Association, a few more critical thoughts--It is a bad law for three reasons.
First the law was drafted in an empirical and historical vacuum WITHOUT the input of the judicial branch. The Rules Enabling Act was established by Congress to assure that amendment of Federal Rules occurs only after a comprehensive and balanced review of the problem and proposed solution is undertaken by the Judicial Conference of the United States. That review was not done.
Second, there is no demonstrated evidence that the existing sanction rule (called Rule 11) is inadequate and needs to be amended. Judges have all sorts of punitive tools in their arsenal
Third, by ignoring the lessons learned from ten (10) years of experience under 1983 mandatory version of Rule 11, Congress incurs the substantial risk that the proposed changes harm litigants by encouraging additional litigation and increasing the court costs and delays.
Paul Cook is a clueless wonder...now another chapter in that book....his HR 758 vote.
Monday, September 28, 2015
Thursday, September 17, 2015
Oversight Reports for Veterans Affairs Office of Inspector General (OIG) Reports Overruns & Ongoing Problems Paul Cook's HR 832 Does Not Address
Veterans Benefits Management System overruns..... $579.2M to $1.3B & NOTHING COOK did by pushing for HR 832 will improve claim processing & benefits delivery!!
In February 2013, the VA could not provide reasonable assurance the Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS) would meet its goals of increasing claims processing accuracy to 98 percent and eliminating the disability claims backlog by 2015.
"Since September 2009, total estimated VBMS costs increased significantly from about $579.2 million to approximately $1.3 billion in January 2015. The increases appear due to inadequate cost control, unplanned changes in system and business requirements, and inefficient contracting practices".
The result?? "The VA could not ensure an effective return on its investment and total actual VBMS system development costs remained unknown.
"VBMS did not fully provide the capability to process claims from initial application to benefits delivery".
"Users lacked training needed to leverage the enhanced functionality provided. System response-time issues resulted from rapid software enhancements while system disruptions were due to inadequate service continuity practices. Until these issues are addressed, VA will continue to lack assurance of meeting its claims processing accuracy and backlog elimination goals by the end of 2015".
Paul Cook is clueless--in fact the bill he touts as his solution [HR 832 which this blogger commented on June 11, 2015], does nothing to increase capability to process claim forms (just study the system) and does nothing to train the users to leverage the additional functionality already provided.
Saturday, September 12, 2015
ANOTHER CRIMINAL JUSTICE ISSUE for CONGRESS: WHY WE NEED A NATIONAL STANDARD OF WHEN & HOW WE HANDLE DNA EVIDENCE
Grits for Breakfast: A reluctant scoop: Changing intepretations of DNA ...: DNA has often been referred to as the gold standard of forensic evidence. And when comparing a single sample to a suspect, that's true. ...