What Can the State Legislature Do to End Frivolous Asbestos Claims

Read More About Legal

At a hearing held by the state affairs committee, the subject of possible legislative limits on asbestos and silica litigation occurred. The answer may be found in a member of the house, a medical doctor who authored the senate bill that has been pinpointed by certain business interests that note the influx of unfounded claims in the court system. The issue here is business groups claiming personal injury lawyers, referred to as greed oriented trial lawyers, are taking advantage of victims with the aid of doctors who are willing to do numerous X-ray readings. They also believe that businesses are being stressed too much by the costs of trying to defend themselves from fraudulent claims.

There are personal injury lawyers who represent injured workers who don't want there to be any legislative action affecting their practices, especially when there are now laws on the books sending all the asbestos cases in a state to just one judge. And these personal injury lawyers will often try to push through a case regardless of whether or not that case actually holds any water, taking advantage of a new generation of people who are determined to make money from claims of silica exposure.

Companies have asserted that true injuries could be distinguished from meritless claims by forcing plaintiffs to demonstrate substantive damage resulting from asbestos contact, and not just produce an x-ray image. 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.

This bill could also provide workers who have not yet begun to show symptoms despite being exposed room more protections. One measure is that the typical two year statute of limitations is not applicable. No matter the time since exposure, a worker can sue if they develop adequate symptoms. Next, the bill would keep insurance companies from denying people their coverage, regardless of whether or not their medical tests show that they have been exposed to asbestos.

Although these are both positive changes, the opponents to this bill say that the medical standards a worker would have to pass are far to stringent. The proposed bill would maintain medical requirements prior to commencement of a lawsuit, though a judge would have the authority to send the claim through the process in order to assess its seriousness. The purpose of these laws is to preserve the rights of the workers, while simultaneously sifting out the fraudulent claims to keep our justice system working at a speedy rate.

Some house members have noted that if doctors are already creating false medical reports to boost claims, then altering the medical standards will do nothing to fix the problem. The doctors will just keep lying. Regardless of the motives, the state has an obvious interest to eliminate the fraudulent claims from the law system. Workers who have a legitimate claim have the right to their day in court as soon as they can. This is house bill amendment, however, one house member feels that the senate should be considering this idea as well.

Article Source: http://depositarticles.com/

When you would like to get more information on personal injury lawyers check out this site. For resources on melbourne compensation lawyers check out this site.

Please Rate this Article

Not yet Rated

Click the XML Icon Above to Receive Legal Articles Via RSS!

Additional Articles From - Home | Legal

Our other websites
All about SEO
Beauty Tips Forum

	Print This Article
	Post Comment
	Add To Favorites
	Email to Friends
	Ezine Ready

Submit Articles
Member Login
Link Us
Submission Guidelines
Ezine Notifications
Article RSS Feeds
Sitemap

New Stuff
About Us
Developer
Good shopping portal
Link to Us
Contact Us
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service