Survey and Choice of Patterns of Administrative and Public Interest Lawsuits
0
Citation
0
Reference
20
Related Paper
Abstract:
Our country's future system of administrative public interest lawsuits can benefit from the pattern of western nations: In the starting pattern,a variety of commencement can be used.In lawsuit authorization,with citizens' precensored lawsuits playing a primary role.In the lawsuit time,both post-sentence lawsuits and prevention lawsuits should be allowed.Keywords:
Lawsuit
Cite
SINCE 1992, the International Association of Defense Counsel has promoted the National Presuit Mediation Program. This effort involves the attempt to dispose of multiple claims, even before lawsuits are filed, by providing a method for insurers and corporations to meet with claimants and their attorneys to dispose of claims at an early stage in order to avoid lengthy and expensive litigation. The Director of the National Presuit Mediation Program is James A. Ready Jr. of Columbus, Ohio, and he has been successful in putting together a summit meeting of representatives of the insurance industry, corporate counsel, the plaintiff's bar, the judiciary, alternate dispute resolution experts, and representatives of the public sector to look at and evaluate the benefits of the program. At that meeting in Chicago, we were successful in obtaining supportive remarks from President Roberta Cooper Ramo of the American Bar Association. Since that meeting, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, through its board of directors, has agreed to endorse the program. Obligation for service There has been some skepticism on the part of the defense bar as to the value of this program and whether it is appropriate for the International Association of Defense Counsel to be a primary sponsor. As lawyers, it is our obligation to render a service to our clients as well as to the general public. At the present time, it is certainly less than 10 percent of all claims that actually go into litigation and require the services of an attorney, and only a very small percentage of lawsuits actually go to trial. It is estimated that well less than I percent of suits brought against insurance companies are tried. A pilot project of the National Presuit Mediation Program initiated in San Antonio, Texas, has been very successful, with almost 90 percent of all mediated claims being disposed of in the system. During the past five years, this entire program has been financially underwritten by the insurance industry. Not only does the program require insurers continued, even increased, financial support, but it also requires the insurance industry's agreement to participate actively in the program by agreeing to mediation of claims even before lawsuits are filed. Benefits for all Presuit mediation offers obvious benefits to claimants as a method of disposing of claims in a timely fashion--and certainly at a reduced cost. Attorneys for claimants also should be happy to participate because they get the opportunity to move a claim toward conclusion at an early stage with the insurance industry bearing a significant part of the cost of the mediation program. The judiciary has been and will continue to benefit from the use of multiple methods of alternative dispute resolution techniques, but this program particularly should be of benefit in reducing the number of lawsuits filed. When cases are filed, of necessity they must work their way through the judicial system. ADR professionals should certainly benefit from the increased opportunities for expanding their business base. …
Obligation
Cite
Citations (0)
The Department of Justice (DOJ) reports that after violent crime, health care fraud is the department's top priority. The number of health care fraud investigations pending at the DOJ increased from 270 cases in 1992 to more than 4,000 in 1997. The DOJ's primary weapon in prosecuting health care fraud is the federal False Claims Act (FCA) of 1863 (31 U.S.C. secs. 3729-3733). Almost unique among federal antifraud provisions, the FCA may also be used by "private prosecutors" to file lawsuits on behalf of the federal government charging organizations with submitting false claims to the government. The FCA rewards such whistle-blowers with a share of any resulting recoveries as a bounty and protects them from discharge for filing false claims lawsuits against their employers. It also requires defendants to pay the costs and attorneys fees of successful claimants. Although the private "bounty hunter" features of the FCA data back to the Civil War, these so-called qui tam claims were nearly dormant until 1986, when Congress amended the FCA to revive their use. Following the 1986 amendments, and paralleling the rapid increase in federal reimbursements for health care costs, private qui tam claims have far expanded beyond their traditional purview of defense contracts into the field of health care. By 1997, health care providers were the targets of 54 percent of the 530 private qui tam lawsuits field that year.
False Claims Act
Cite
Citations (7)
Cite
Citations (0)
Author(s): Gottlieb, Mark; Sweda, Edward, Jr.; Guardino, Sara D. | Abstract: Abstract Cigarettes manufactured by fewer than half a dozen domestic companies cause approximately 440,000 deaths and $155 billion in medical and lost productivity costs each year in the United States. Despite this toll, Congress has not authorized the United States Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarette design or marketing. Likewise, the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot regulate cigarettes and the Federal Trade Commission has played a relatively passive role over the past two decades.Where legislative and regulatory approaches fail, courts have offered an alternative means of addressing the harm caused by cigarette manufacturers. Successful products liability lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers shift health and productivity costs of smoking from families and third-party payers back to cigarette companies, forcing increases in cigarette prices. Litigation thus has proven to be an effective public health strategy for reducing smoking.On September 22, 1999, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a lawsuit against the leading domestic cigarette manufacturers (collectively, “Defendants”) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. DOJ is seeking to stop the Defendants’ alleged decades-long misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). RICO authorizes DOJ to pursue criminal and civil sanctions against individuals and organizations that are engaged in a conspiracy involving certain federal felonies, including mail and wire fraud. DOJ is pursuing RICO’s civil sanctions only in this lawsuit. This law synopsis provides an overview of the lawsuit and its possible outcomes, reviews the basic allegations against Defendants and their responses, reviews the remedies DOJ seeks, and covers important events during the litigation’s pre-trial phase. The synopsis also summarizes the manner in which the trial will proceed, reports key testimony provided thus far, and outlines the impact of possible outcomes.
Lawsuit
Tobacco Industry
Cite
Citations (0)
Abstract Cigarettes manufactured by fewer than half a dozen domestic companies cause approximately 440,000 deaths and $155 billion in medical and lost productivity costs each year in the United States. Despite this toll, Congress has not authorized the United States Food and Drug Administration to regulate cigarette design or marketing. Likewise, the Consumer Product Safety Commission cannot regulate cigarettes and the Federal Trade Commission has played a relatively passive role over the past two decades. Where legislative and regulatory approaches fail, courts have offered an alternative means of addressing the harm caused by cigarette manufacturers. Successful products liability lawsuits against cigarette manufacturers shift health and productivity costs of smoking from families and third-party payers back to cigarette companies, forcing increases in cigarette prices. Litigation thus has proven to be an effective public health strategy for reducing smoking. On September 22, 1999, the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ†) filed a lawsuit against the leading domestic cigarette manufacturers (collectively, “Defendants†) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. DOJ is seeking to stop the Defendants’ alleged decades-long misrepresentations and other fraudulent conduct under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO†). RICO authorizes DOJ to pursue criminal and civil sanctions against individuals and organizations that are engaged in a conspiracy involving certain federal felonies, including mail and wire fraud. DOJ is pursuing RICO’s civil sanctions only in this lawsuit. This law synopsis provides an overview of the lawsuit and its possible outcomes, reviews the basic allegations against Defendants and their responses, reviews the remedies DOJ seeks, and covers important events during the litigation’s pre-trial phase. The synopsis also summarizes the manner in which the trial will proceed, reports key testimony provided thus far, and outlines the impact of possible outcomes.
Lawsuit
Tobacco Industry
Cite
Citations (0)
Abusive patent litigation practices waste judicial resources, distract producers from bringing technological innovations to the public, and generate unnecessary social costs. These abusive practices are abetted by the American Rule, under which each party to a lawsuit bears its own attorneys’ fees absent statutory authorization. Creating an exception to the American Rule by transferring the burden of the winning party’s legal fees to the shoulders of the losing party based on the outcome of litigation will effectively deter filings of questionable merit and other abusive litigation practices.
Lawsuit
Burden of Proof
Cite
Citations (4)
Insurance disputes are typically governed by state law, and state insurance laws vary considerably, with some states being favorable to policyholders and others being unfavorable. With forum shopping, a plaintiff often has many choices regarding where it can bring a lawsuit, including multiple states in which to bring the case and whether to bring the case in federal or state court. Of the over 1000 COVID-19 business interruption insurance lawsuits filed thus far, more than 700 of them have been filed in, or removed to, federal court, with more than 250 of the cases filed as class actions. Many of them were also filed in states with insurance laws that are not favorable to policyholders.
Conventional wisdom provides that a plaintiff’s chances of winning are generally much higher in state court than in federal court and that historically federal class actions against insurers have been successful only approximately twenty-five percent of the time. So, why were so many of the COVID-19 business interruption insurance cases filed in federal court in unfavorable states and as class actions when the historical chances of winning are so low in such forums, particularly as class actions?
This Essay provides some possible answers to that question. In doing so, it explores forum shopping considerations in general, the conventional wisdom regarding litigating in federal versus state court, and the empirical data regarding the odds of winning in state versus federal court.
Lawsuit
Federal court
Odds
Cite
Citations (0)
Objective: To describe the epidemiology of litigation against the tobacco industry in the United States during the years 1994–2005 (described as the “third wave” of tobacco litigation). “Epidemiology” refers to the study of the distribution and determinants of disease in populations. We apply the term “epidemiology” to the litigation context for purposes of characterising qualitatively and, to the extent possible, quantitatively the variety of cases litigated against tobacco manufacturers and allied tobacco interests during the third wave and their impact on the tobacco industry. Methods: The data for this paper come from legal cases identified in the Tobacco Deposition and Trial Testimony Archive (DATTA) collection ( http://tobaccodocuments.org/datta ), transcripts of testimony and related documents found in DATTA, government-mandated reports filed by tobacco manufacturers with the US Securities and Exchange Commission, investment company reports, reports and analyses published by the news media, a variety of informational documents produced by the Tobacco Control Resource Center at the Northeastern University School of Law, and legal settlement documents provided by the National Association of Attorneys General. Results: The US tobacco industry faced a far greater number of lawsuits, and a greater variety of types of lawsuit, between 1994 and 2005 than it had in previous years. Plaintiffs won 31 (41%) of the 75 cases that were tried to verdict during the years 1995–2005. Seven plaintiffs have been paid awards totalling US$115 million, including interest, following the exhaustion of appeals. Based on an evaluation of litigation brought against US industry leader Philip Morris, the total number of cases pending peaked in 2000, dropping off modestly since then. For example, 36 class actions were pending in 2000, while 33 were pending in 2005. In the same time period, individual actions fell from a total of 3385 to 2863. While the playing field has been levelled to some degree in the tobacco litigation arena with respect to the resources brought to bear by plaintiffs and defendants, tobacco industry defendants continue to employ far greater financial and human resources than their adversaries. Conclusions: The third wave of tobacco litigation has represented a sea change in efforts to hold the tobacco industry in the United States accountable in American courtrooms. While tobacco manufacturers continue to do their utmost to make these cases difficult to pursue, many of the cases that have gone to trial have met with success in recent years, which suggests that plaintiffs’ lawyers are now better equipped to persuade juries of the defendants’ culpability.
Tobacco Industry
Lawsuit
Cite
Citations (20)
About the condition of the administrative public welfare lawsuit always is an administrative public welfare lawsuit research important question.Generally speaking,the condition of the administrative public welfare lawsuit mainly includes: the suitable plaintiff,to have explicitly defendants,to belong to the document scope of administrative public welfare lawsuit,to pass through certain pretage procedure,and so on.Among them,the plaintiff qualifications question is the most important condition question of the administrative public welfare lawsuit,on the overseas experience foundation,our country should establish a multi-dimensional plaintiff qualifications system which takes the public service institution primarily,the public welfare association and the organization as auxiliary,the citizen personally for the supplement.
Lawsuit
Scope (computer science)
Cite
Citations (0)
This article explores the characteristics of lawsuits for obtaining access to healthcare through the Argentine Supreme Court and reflects on the potential to influence health rights and equity in a context of growing litigation. An analysis of documents from 125 lawsuits with verdicts issued from 1994 to 2013 showed a majority of individual claims (88% of claimants were individual physical persons), and of claimants covered by social security or private insurance (64%) with typical private legal counsel (87% claiming coverage of a medical service). 75% of the verdicts simply ordered the provision of the claimed health services, without highlighting failures in the healthcare system or mandating measures to promote equity and guarantee the right to health for other persons subject to the same situation as the claimant. Thus far, litigation in health has failed to actively promote either health equity, the right to health, or inter-institutional dialogue.
Right to Health
Equity
Cite
Citations (2)