Judge Declares Medical Bills Statute Unconstitutional
August 27, 2009
The medical bills statute of the 2005 tort reform law is unconstitutional, a St. Louis County judge said this morning as he granted a plaintiff’s motion for a new trial.
Judge Stephen Goldman called the procedure for determining the reasonable value of medical care vague and a violation of the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Goldman’s judgment came in a vehicular personal injury lawsuit between plaintiffs Ronald and Daphyn Vickery and defendant Herbert Glosemeyer. Daphyn Vickery was dismissed from the case without prejudice in April.
Spencer Farris, who represents Ronald Vickery, alleged reasonable damages of $86,027.93, but, before trial, Goldman decided $51,544.90 was the reasonable amount of medical services received. In June, a jury returned a verdict in favor of Vickery but awarded him $25,772.45 plus costs.
The medical bills statute, Section 490.715.5, states that evidence of the amount of the paid medical bills creates a rebuttable presumption of reasonableness. Farris argued in his motion for new trial that testimony by Vickery’s treating neurosurgeon rebutted the presumption that the amount paid, $51,544.90, was the reasonable value of medical care.
The case is Vickery v. Glosemeyer, 08SL-CC00824.
Posted in Missouri Lawyers Media
Contact The S.E. Farris Law Firm for a Free consultation. You may reach us at 314-A-LAWYER or by clicking here.
Consumers May Get Unfair Arbitration Relief
October 6, 2008
When you buy a car, use your credit card or even your cell phone, you may be giving up your constitutional rights. Many consumer goods carry in their contracts of use an agreement by you, the consumer, to use arbitration rather than have a jury trial if the good or service is defective or harms you. If you are like most consumers, you didn’t even realize you were sacrificing your rights!
Change may be on the horizon. According to David Arkush, Director, Public Citizen’s Congress Watch Division:
On July 15, 2008, the U.S. House Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law took an important step toward protecting American consumers from companies that would take away their access to the courts.
By reporting out the Arbitration Fairness Act (H.R. 3010), the Automobile Arbitration Fairness Act (H.R. 5312) and the Fairness in Nursing Home Arbitration Act (H.R. 6126), the subcommittee sends a strong message: Consumers deserve the right to choose whether to solve their disputes in court or through private arbitration.
Most consumers don’t know that they’ve been stripped of the right to take credit card companies, banks or cell phone providers to court for wrongdoing. These and countless other service providers immunize themselves from accountability with contracts that require all disputes to go to secretive, private forums chosen by the company. These binding mandatory arbitration requirements are buried in the fine print of contracts and, even if consumers find them, are rarely negotiable.
Forcing consumers to settle disputes through arbitration gives corporations an unfair advantage by allowing them to hand-pick business-friendly arbitrators, while saddling consumers with costs far higher than those in court and much slimmer chances of success. Allowing big corporations to shop for arbitration firms and impose them on consumers creates nothing less than a market for injustice in which arbitrators compete to favor corporations. The solution is to give consumers a meaningful choice on whether to arbitrate.
The three bills passed by the subcommittee will level the playing field between consumers and big business by ensuring that all arbitrations are truly voluntary. Arbitration is fair only when both sides have a choice in the matter. When corporations can force arbitration on consumers, it becomes an abusive weapon.
We applaud the members of the subcommittee for standing up for consumers, and we urge their colleagues to continue moving these bills toward enactment. Consumers deserve the right to choose how to settle their disputes.