contact:

Dan Fee

1/877-870-FAIR

215-704-3160 (cell)

Real Agenda of Caps Proponents Revealed in New Patriot-News Article

Goal of Dangerous "All-Tort" Amendment is to Limit Big Businesses Liability, Not Help Doctors

Philadelphia : Just days before the state Judiciary Committee is scheduled to hold a hearing on whether or not to impose an arbitrary cap on non-economic damages, a new article in the Harrisburg Patriot-News exposes the true intent of the cabal backing limits on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases: protecting businesses by imposing caps in every civil case.  Recently, Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse (CALA) set up an outpost in Harrisburg to fight for the "all-tort" bill , hiring two dozen of the most prominent lobbyists in town to fight for the bill at untold expense.  CALA-PA shares the name and agenda with CALAs in other states that have historically been funded by a tobacco industry desperate to limit their liability.

In June, the state House narrowly passed the broad "all-tort" amendment without a single day of hearings on the intent or impact of such a broad constitutional change.  In recent weeks, as the scrutiny of the pro-caps contingent's claims has picked up, many of them were found either to be either untrue or unverifiable.  It is unclear if the Senate will pass a Constitutional change without first obtaining the credible data necessary to make an informed decision.

Although the outcome of the Senate action remains in doubt, one thing is certain: in the coming days, there will be a great deal of rhetoric expended by the business community about how lawsuits are limiting economic development in Pennsylvania .  Their claims, like the claims of caps for medical malpractice, will also be unverifiable given the poor quality of data available.

However, the questions that should be - MUST be - asked by decision makers include:

• How much of the overall cost of litigation in Pennsylvania is from businesses suing each other?

• Should recoveries be restricted in cases where businesses are making claims against each other?  Or should only suits by individuals against companies be restricted?

• Should Big Tobacco be immunized or in any way have their liability reduced?

• Should environmental polluters be immunized?

• Should guilty parties in drunk driving cases be immunized or have their liabilities reduced?

• Should companies be immunized from shareholder suits in the post- Enron and Worldcom era?

These questions - and many others - must be answered fully and truthfully before the Senate acts to change our constitution.

###