Tort Reform

Re "Texans Still at Odds Over Bush's Legal Reforms," Sept. 22: After working 10 years to enact 35 civil justice reform measures, it was a great disappointment to see our efforts wrongly characterized as changes to residential liability statutes that were never part of any tort reform effort. Residential construction statutes are also no measure of Gov. George Bush's reform record, as they were enacted either before or after Bush was governor. Though quoted plaintiff lawyers claim consumers have been denied the right to sue in Texas, no tort reform bill took away that right.

The insurance industry is on notice that its nationwide drive in the state legislatures for change in the civil justice system--so-called tort reform--has gone about as far as it can go unless there is a clear demonstration that the reforms will result in lower insurance rates. That message was conveyed by state insurance regulators at last week's meeting here of the National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners.

Lobbyists are lining up in Washington to cut special deals to protect their clients from lawsuits. This is no way to reform the legal system. As reported by The Times' Richard Simon, it seems everyone wants to be exempted from facing legal consequences: Gun makers are pressing Congress to limit lawsuits sparked by the unlawful use of firearms. The oil industry is lobbying for prohibitions against lawsuits linked to a gasoline additive that is polluting underground water supplies.

For 50 years, the American civil justice system has been the last, best line of defense for the average Joe against the abuse of corporate power and a government that too often fails to protect its citizens. "Tort" litigation won redress for Vietnam vets suffering from exposure to Agent Orange and for African Americans denied service at Denny's restaurants, and it may finally also do so for the Enron shareholders who lost pensions and life savings when that company imploded.

Re: Michael Hiltzik's business column "Why tort reform is a frivolous diversion," Oct. 1: Preventable medical errors kill nearly 100,000 people a year. Precious few injured patients ever file a lawsuit or recover a dime for their injuries. If the goal is fewer lawsuits, it should be achieved by increasing the quality of medicine practiced in this country. Unfortunately, doctors and hospitals generally resist changes that have been proven to make medical care safer, preferring to demonize lawyers.

Hillary Clinton's current role in the Clinton Administration is likely to lead to bad government. I feel this is true for two reasons. Neither has anything to do with gender, the Constitution or bureaucratic competence. First, Bill Clinton ran on a moderate "I'm a new kind of Democrat" platform. Mrs. Clinton, on the other hand, appears to be more of a Ted Kennedy-style liberal Democrat. As Bill Clinton adopted a "quota system" for his Cabinet and appointed more and more of Hillary's liberal buddies to Cabinet posts, it became clear that, although we thought we had elected a moderate President, we were getting an old-fashioned "tax-and-spend" liberal Administration.

Whatever happened to the liability insurance crisis? A year ago, it was compared to the oil embargo that devastated the world economy. A lack of insurance for municipalities threatened the elimination of services such as police and fire protection. Unable to afford coverage for malpractice lawsuits, some obstetricians stopped delivering babies.

It is one of the poorest states in the nation, but in recent years Mississippi has developed a reputation for granting exorbitant awards to plaintiffs who sued in its courts. The state is now moving to curb those lawsuits through a sweeping set of legal reforms signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Ronnie Musgrove and hailed by business leaders as a big step in reversing depictions of Mississippi as a breeding ground for frivolous lawsuits.

As a woman physician, I was initially pleased to see Hillary Rodham Clinton in a substantive role in the White House. Since Mrs. Clinton began applying herself to the task, I have been profoundly disappointed with her approach. On the issue of freedom of information, I am disappointed that a court order was required to open her sessions to the public. I also became aware that one of her key advisers was a medical school dropout who worked for Al Gore, and another the cousin of one of our esteemed senators.

In an attempt to explain discrepancies in data touted by both opponents and proponents of tort reform legislation, the RAND Corp.'s Institute of Civil Justice said today that both sides wrongly perceive the nation's tort liability system as one system when it has split into three. "We need to know what part of the elephant we are patting," wrote institute research director Deborah R.