JOEL BIEBER'S BLOG

A Hidden Juror Attitude

     I am one who still enjoys reading the 'Letters to the Editor'. Typically, you find the most zealous or motivated, who choose to sit down and write a letter to a newspaper. Sometimes, it is some political concoction by some campaign. I guess that's why I enjoy reading them. In many instances, I don't even understand the rationale, but I enjoy the passion.

     This morning, I was perusing the Richmond Times Dispatch and came across one that was captioned,"Outrageous Lawsuits Help No One". In light of the type of work that I do, of course that caught my attention. (Letter) The letter dealt with a lawsuit that was recently filed, involving the death of one young man who was killed by a 16 year old drunk driver, in the Henrico area . The premise of the letter and the opinion of the writer is that the lawsuit for an "outrageously large sum of money" will not bring a son back to his parents and for that reason, it is outrageous to file such a lawsuit.

     I don't expect that there really is anything that I could say that would change this person's mind.You wonder what life experience would attack the parents for seeking their available legal remedies. How do you respond to the notion that, since it won't bring a son back to life, that the lawsuit should not be filed.

     There was a time that there was an avenue of punishment called a debtor's prison. Thankfully, that cruel punishment for debt, no longer exists. Now the law recognizes that a jury of your peers can apply the law and determine damages. Of course, it does not bring back that lost person and it doesn't heal the emotional pain. However, that is all that the law can do.It financially makes the responsible party accountable. For that reason, when I choose a jury, I know that at the beginning of the trial, each juror took an oath to apply the law, and they agree to abide by it, even if they disagree with the law.

     Great men have made great sacrifices so that a King doesn't decide. We are fortunate to have a system where a jury can decide damages. Somehow, I just don't understand how filing a lawsuit for loss and allowing the law to be applied, can be seen as an outrageous lawsuit. However, as I said earlier, that's why I enjoy reading those letters, because whether the premise is crazy or even if I totally disagree, at least there usually is some passion injected. As long as we have that, at least someone is still caring about what is happening. In this instance, I just always need to make sure that I keep that "caring individual" off my juries.   

Governor Sanford Becomes Judge and Legislator

     Our South Carolina office has a busy worker's compensation practice that was impacted a little bit by the past South Carolina General Assembly. New laws were enacted that did restrict some ability to received compensation. The new laws were outlined by Paul Rathke, in his blog on this website. However,there were some that thought that the laws did not go far enough. As is usual in politics, certain compromises were the cause of the end result of the new comp legislation.

     Now, it has become well known in SC that the Governor was one who was not satisfied with the legislatures actions. Typically,if a Governor is not satisfied with legislation, the remedy is to veto it. In this instance,the Governor signed it into law. Now, the Governor has issued an executive order that tells the judicial branch of the Worker's Compensation Commission, the Commissioners, how to apply their standards in hearing cases involving permanent injuries. (Executive Order)  The Governor has told the Commissioners that they are not to find a worker totally and permanently disabled unless the American Medical Association guidelines have been determined to be applied as rating the injured worker as such. What this means is that if someone is rated as 40% disabled under the guidelines, then the Governor is saying that they cannot be totally and permanently disabled since the guidelines of the AMA only say they are 40%. So, instead of receiving 500 weeks of permanent disability as the law allows, the worker would only receive 40% of that.

     The problem with the Governor's executive order is that it ignores the law of the legislature which says that a Commissioner is to view the AMA rating along with the inability to do work, in arriving at what disability a worker may have. In addition, the executive order ignores the application of the law by Judges. In the instant cases, the Commissioners have sent out word that they will either put all permanent injury cases off the docket or will hear the cases but just not rule until this is cleared up.

     In this circumstance, the Governor has decided to override the other two branches to impose his will on the law. It is expected that the Courts will determine that this order is unconstitutional. I suppose that those advising Governor Sanford to issue this order, think that it will make him look like he his so "pro-business" that any outcry by injured workers will pale in comparison to the support he will garner in the business community. I think Governor Sanford will be surprised at the backlash of such actions. Once again it appears that the saying of "absolute power corrupts absolutely" still applies. Sanford is apparently a man who thinks he should be king.  Now it's time for the legislators and the Courts to tell him he is only Governor.