subject: Separate Serious Asbestos Claims For Fraudulent Ones [print this page] The difficulty lies in the question of what the legislature can and should do to attempt limiting asbestos and silica lawsuits, and this question has been raised in the state affairs committee hearing. 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. These business groups note that too many individuals have been taken advantage of by greedy personal injury lawyers and doctors who generously provide X-rays at immediate request. It's also their contention a lot of business are over spending money to defend claims that have no merit.
Due to some of the tort law changes that have already been made, many of the personal injury lawyers representing workers state legislative action consider legislative action unnecessary since new cases concerning asbestos cases are heard by one judge in a specific state. Many personal injury lawyers continue to pursue claims without merit, and some are particularly focused on a business based on pursuit of an entire generation of silica exposure claims.
The argument from businesses is to separate fraudulent claims from serious one by a requirement that claimants show proof they really sustained physical damage or effects due to being exposed to asbestos, not just damage that shows up on an X-ray. To that end, the legislation under consideration would adjust a proposal from the bar association which articulated medical requirements, such as imagine studies, respiratory exams and physician reports, prior to authorization of any lawsuit's commencement.
In addition, this bill would offer a couple specific protections to workers who know they were exposed but haven't yet proven there was damage done. One of those protections would be to remove the application of a two year statute of limitations. A worker prevented from opening a claim who experiences severe symptoms would still be able to file a lawsuit regardless of time passed. The bill would also prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to that worker regardless of whether medical tests reveal asbestos exposure.
These measures provide valuable safeguards, but some proponents argue the medical guidelines are too strict. 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. This process is intended to protect workers who have been exposed to hazardous substances while attempting to limit the influx of questionable or specious lawsuits.
The house members have said that they believe there are doctors out there who lie about their medical standards, and that raising the standards of medical proof will not actually solve the problem as it stands. If you raise the medical standard, that doesn't stop unethical physicians from simply lying to higher standard. Regardless of the motives of the involved parties, the government needs to get the fake claims out of the courts. Workers who have a real, true claim should be able to have their claims processed as soon as possible. This bill, which has been submitted in the house, should be heard by the senate, according to the bill's sponsor.
by: Andrew Smith..
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
