http://personalinjuryclaimclaims.com

The State Affairs Committee recently found itself addressing the nagging question of what the legislature is able to do about the growing number of asbestos and silica lawsuits. One potential solution to this problem has been introduced by a freshman house member, a medical doctor in fact, who has penned a pro-business bill that postulates that unnecessary claims slow down the judicial process. Business groups contest that many of the victims in these cases are being taken advantage of by personal injury lawyers and their questionable doctor cohorts that create false cases from questionable medical data. The groups further claim that many businesses spend vast sums of money trying to fend off these fake claims.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys counter with the assertion that legislation is unnecessary, due to alterations in the law which direct asbestos litigation to a central judicial clearinghouse. However, there seems to be a new wave of silica exposure claims surfacing due to some of the lawyers handling personal injury complaints that have been pushing through claims which are definitely questionable.

Businesses argue that it’s possible to sift away the fraudulent claims, leaving only the valid claims left to address, and that part of the process of sifting should be to require more proof than just an x ray. In order to enact these changes, a bill has been proposed that would modify the bar association’s proposal to require people who want to make an asbestos case to meet a very detailed set of medical standards, including but not limited to an x ray, breathing test and full doctor’s examination before they are allowed to file a lawsuit.

For those workers who have been exposed but are unable to show any harm yet, there is some protection. First, the bill would wave the usual two year statute of limitations for exposed workers. Workers who are unable to pursue claims in the beginning but end up developing serious symptoms later on could sue again regardless of how much later their symptoms arose. Second, insurance companies will no longer be allowed to deny coverage to those whose medical exams indicate potentially harmful levels of exposure to asbestos.

Safeguards like this are important, but the response from critics claim the standards are overly stringent and inflexible. While this newer proposal would make sure medical standards are kept current so a worker can sue, it would still mean a referral is needed from a judge for determination of it’s actual medical merit. The goal would be making sure a worker’s current rights are maintained, while still being able to separate out the fraudulent, or totally frivolous claims.

One opponent pointed out that if physicians are just lying in order to participate in fraudulent claims, then no bill in the world can fix that problem. The doctors will just keep lying. Whatever the motives of either side are, it’s clear that the state should take a real interest in ridding itself of false claims. Those workers who really do have good suits should be helped quickly. Although the members of the house proposed this amendment, this will only effect the bill in the house and not the senate as well.

Get further information from compensation lawyers box hill about lawyers and more. We hope you like our article on compensation solicitor altona and the broader topic of lawyers.

Related Posts:



http://personalinjuryclaimclaims.com

Tagged with: asbestos • google • Injury Compensation • legal • personal injury

Filed under: Injury Compensation

Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!