OKLAHOMA CITY - The author of legislation that proposes sweeping changes to Oklahoma's civil justice system said Thursday the idea is probably dead for the year after he pulled the bill from consideration in the Oklahoma House.
Advertisement
Rep. Dan Sullivan, R-Tulsa, said he does not plan to bring the bill back up again because it faced a likely veto by Gov. Brad Henry, who vetoed a bill last year that contained many of the same provisions.
"We have the same governor we had last year," Sullivan said. "If he's been willing to compromise, we haven't heard from him."
Among other things, the bill sought to put caps on pain and suffering damages in personal injury cases and modify guidelines for class-action lawsuits.
A spokesman for Henry has said the governor believes caps are unfair and unconstitutional because they arbitrarily limit Oklahomans' ability to seek appropriate compensation for injuries and wrongdoing.
In addition, Oklahoma royalty owners have expressed opposition to a proposal requiring litigants to "opt in" to a class-action lawsuit to become eligible to recoup unpaid royalties. Under existing law, class members are automatically included in a class-action lawsuit unless they formally notify the court they want to "opt out."
Sullivan's action surprised many of his House colleagues and followed defeat of an amendment Sullivan filed that sought a statewide vote of the people on a plan to limit attorney contingency fees in personal injury cases while stripping it of all other provisions.
The amendment failed on a bipartisan 63-32 vote after opponents described it as a political stunt that attempted to control the free-market fee schedules of attorneys in a way that resembles socialism.
"What's wrong with the free-market system? Why do we want to mess with that?" said Rep. Terry Harrison, D-McAlester, an attorney. "This is bad public policy."
"Bad ideas have no boundaries," said Rep. Rex Duncan, R-Sand Springs, also an attorney. Duncan asked Sullivan whether a government-mandated fee schedule in a free-market economy would qualify as socialism.
"This is a political stunt in an election year," Duncan said.
"This is about politics," said Rep. Richard Morrissette, D-Oklahoma City, another attorney. "This is a really bad deal."
Sullivan, who is also an attorney, said his amendment called for a vote of the people to limit attorney fees in civil lawsuit contingency cases at 33 percent for the first $1 million in damages awarded to an injured person and 20 percent for all other damages.
"This would put more money in the pockets of the injured party," Sullivan said. He said the state already limits attorney fees in workers compensation cases to 20 percent of damage awards.
Sullivan said Oklahoma attorneys currently collect up to 50 percent of damage awards to injured persons, plus expenses and other costs they incur in litigating a civil case. About a dozen other states have caps on contingency fee arrangements that are more restrictive, he said.
Opponents said limiting the fee schedule would dissuade attorneys from taking some personal injury cases and force them to seek larger verdicts on others to help pay their operating costs, increasing the cost of the civil justice system.
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Kevin: This amendment was opposed by 19, count them, 19 Republicans, most of whom are NOT lawyers. Actually, there are very few lawyers in the House of Representatives, but the facts probably don't need to get in your way, now, do they?
The hypocrisy of this amendment is self-evident. Rep. Sullivan professes to be concerned about how much injured victims get, but on the other hand he has voted for legislation, separate and apart from this amendment, that would eviscerate their right to recovery. Not surprising, since he makes his living defending doctors.
You obviously know nothing about contingency fees and the huge amount of risk and capital expended by attorneys who agree to take cases not ever knowing if or when they will get paid, yet put up thousands and thousands of their own money to fight insurance companies like State Farm and Allstate, who fight corporations like GM and Ford, etc etc etc No other industry imposes a cap on the return of an individual's investment. Such a bill is, as was pointed out by Rep. Duncan, socialist in nature and the very antithesis of free enterprise and an unnecessary encroachment on freedom of contract. For all of those reasons, the vote to kill the amendment was very sound.
And Kevin, if that injured person can't find a lawyer to represent them because it's not worth the lawyer's time, that injured person gets nothing. I suppose you think lawyers spend all that time in school so that they can work for free?
sounds like the lawyers in out legislature are a little too greedy for their own good. All they want is to take the money from the suit for themselves and leave the victim with a small fraction of their rightful winnings.
3
Prev
Something to say about this topic? Submit a Letter to the Editor online
Thank you for joining our conversations on newsok. We encourage your discussions but ask that you stay within the bounds of our terms and conditions. Please help us by reporting comments that violate these guidelines. To review our rules of engagement, go to Commenting and posting policy.
Log in below or sign up (it's free).
The hypocrisy of this amendment is self-evident. Rep. Sullivan professes to be concerned about how much injured victims get, but on the other hand he has voted for legislation, separate and apart from this amendment, that would eviscerate their right to recovery. Not surprising, since he makes his living defending doctors.
You obviously know nothing about contingency fees and the huge amount of risk and capital expended by attorneys who agree to take cases not ever knowing if or when they will get paid, yet put up thousands and thousands of their own money to fight insurance companies like State Farm and Allstate, who fight corporations like GM and Ford, etc etc etc No other industry imposes a cap on the return of an individual's investment. Such a bill is, as was pointed out by Rep. Duncan, socialist in nature and the very antithesis of free enterprise and an unnecessary encroachment on freedom of contract. For all of those reasons, the vote to kill the amendment was very sound.