* Login
* Register
* My Caller
* Our Staff
* Site Map
* Archives
* Manage my Subscription
* Subscribe to the Caller-Times
* Corpus Christi, TX
Caller.com Corpus Christi News and Information
* Home
o ASK THE PROS
o OBITS
o MILITARY
o BLOGS
o FORUMS
o HEALTH
o PRINT ADS
* News
o ARCHIVES
o COLUMNISTS
o LOCAL
o STATE
o NATIONAL
o OBITS - News
o OBITS - Paid
o PHOTOS
* Business
o LOCAL
o US/WORLD
o COLUMNISTS
o MARKETWATCH
o TECHNOLOGY
* Sports
o LOCAL SPORTS
o HIGH SCHOOL
o CALLER OVERTIME
o COLLEGE
o PRO
o OUTDOORS
* Entertainment
o ARTS
o COMICS
o EVENTS
o MOVIES & SHOWTIMES
o MUSIC
o GAMING
o RESTAURANTS
o TV LISTINGS
* Lifestyles
o BOOKS
o FASHION
o HEALTHY LIVING
o HOME & GARDEN
o HOROSCOPES
* Community
o EDUCATION
o SCHOOLS
o SCHOOL SEARCH
o NEIGHBORHOOD NAVIGATOR
o EVENTS
o OUR MILITARY
o RELIGION
o SOCIETY
o BIRTHS
o WEDDINGS
* Opinions
o COLUMNISTS
o EDITORIALS
o LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
o WRITE A LETTER
o BLOGS
* Weather
o 7-DAY FORECAST
o COASTAL WATERS FORECAST
o EMAIL ALERTS
o HURRICANE CENTER
o WEATHER RADIO
* Caller.com Corpus Christi Jobs
* Homes
o Sales
o Rentals
o Open Homes
o Sunday Homes
* Cars
o Used Cars
o New Cars
o Find a Dealer
o Research
* Classifieds
o Place an Ad
o Find Ads
* ASK PRO
o Ask the Professionals your question
* Help
search
Web Search powered
by YAHOO! SEARCH
Listen Up!!
Give your ears a treat and tune in to one of Caller.com's podcasts. Be careful, you might even learn something.
Click to listen today!
News
* Local
* Hot Topics
* Columnists
o Mike Baird
* State
* Mexico
* National
o Severe Weather
o Science
o Health
o Politics
o News of the Weird
o Today in History
* World
* Noticias Generales
o Financieeras
o Entretenimientos
o Deportivas
* Caller Multimedia
o Photo Galleries
o Podcasts
o Videos
o Crime Stoppers
* News Obits
* Paid Obits
* National Obits
* Police Scanner
* Road Work
* Archives
TopJobs
MORE
* HELP
* SALES PROFESSIONALS
* Apt Maintenance
* KING AIR PIL0TS
* DENTAL ASSISTANT
* CLERICAL and ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT
* LVN and RN, CNA's, Rehab Dept, CNA's
Click a job to view details
Breaking News Alerts
Caller.com E-mail News and Weather alerts
SIGN UP NOW!
My Caller
You are not logged in:
Login or Sign Up
Local
South Texas called a judicial hellhole for 6th straight year
Report poorly researched, lawyer Thomas Henry says
By Mary Ann Cavazos (Contact)
Originally published 03:17 a.m., December 19, 2007
Updated 03:17 a.m., December 19, 2007
STORY TOOLS
* E-mail story
* Comments
* iPod friendly
* Printer friendly
* Print with Comments
related linksMore Local News
* Why Robstown?
* No Obama visit scheduled
* Student's harassment claim rejected
related linksSHARE THIS STORY
Newsvine Del.icio.us Digg Fark Yahoo! Reddit
South Texas is a "Judicial Hellhole" -- at least according to a Washington, D.C.-based organization that ranked the region second among the nation's most unfair civil court jurisdictions.
It is the sixth straight year the American Tort Reform Association listed the Rio Grande Valley and Gulf Coast in its annual report, released Tuesday.
The nonprofit corporation also named five other places including South Florida, which took the top spot; Cook County, Ill.; Clark County, Nev.; Atlantic County, N.J.; and the entire state of West Virginia as judicial hellholes.
According to the association's Web site, the report highlights areas of the country where judges apply the law in "an inequitable manner, generally against defendants in civil lawsuits."
Most references to civil cases in the report involving losses for corporate defendants are broad and don't include specific details. The report's footnotes cite newspaper articles, editorials, other media reports and case filings as some of its sources.
South Texas is a place where many personal injury attorneys forum shop, which refers to when lawyers try to land their cases in the courts of judges more likely to rule in their favor, the report said.
Corpus Christi Bar Association President Rebecca Kieschnick was out of town Tuesday and unavailable for comment. In previous years, local bar officials have said the report should be viewed more as the group's opinion than as an independent report.
One section of the report chastised Corpus Christi attorney Thomas J. Henry, who in September launched a series of TV spots that claim Mauricio Celis is not licensed to practice law and invited his former clients to seek refunds for attorney fees.
While the report mostly provided an unflattering description of personal injury attorneys in general, of Henry it asked, "What do you call someone who chases the ambulance chaser?"
Henry said the report, which has sarcastic overtones, should not be taken seriously.
"I would say they humiliated themselves with the lack of professionalism," Henry said, adding he thought it also was poorly researched.
Henry sued Celis and his Corpus Christi-based firm CGT Law Group International on behalf of one of the firm's former clients.
Celis, who has several pending lawsuits against him in Texas, faces four felony charges in Nueces County including falsely holding oneself out as an attorney, theft, perjury and impersonating a peace officer.
"All they're doing is taking a potshot at a real lawyer when what they should be doing is focusing on the root of the problem," Henry said.
Connie Scott, executive director of Bay Area Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, said the report sheds light on frivolous lawsuits and can be an aid to help reform the civil court system.
"Any reference to Texas in this report is a reminder to all of us that we still have some work to do," Scott said. "I think it's a continual process. We all want a fair system."
The 2007 Judicial Hellholes
1. South Florida
2. Rio Grande Valley and Texas Gulf Coast
3. Cook County, Ill.
4. West Virginia
5. Clark County, Nev. (Las Vegas)
6. Atlantic County, N.J. (Atlantic City)
Source: American Tort Reform Association
To view the American Tort Reform Association’s full 2007 “Judicial Hellholes” report visit www.atra.org.
Contact Mary Ann Cavazos at 886-3623 or cavazosm@caller.com
View latest stories with comments »
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: We've changed the way comments appear on the site. Click here for more information.
* 1. Keep it clean.Comments that are obscene, vulgar, lewd or sexually-oriented will get the ax. Creative spelling of such terms also will be banned.
* 2. Don't threaten to hurt or kill anyone.
* 3. Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything.
* 4. Be nice. No racism, sexism or any other sort of -ism that degrades another person.
* 6. Keep it local. Do not post direct links to sites outside of Caller.com.
* 7. Police yourselves. Hit the "Suggest Removal" button on offensive comments.
* 8. Share what you know. Give us your eyewitness accounts, background, observations and history.
* 9. Ask questions. What more do you want to know about the story?
* 10. Stay focused. Keep on the story's topic.
* 11.Help us get it right. If you find a factual error or misspelling, email newmedia@caller.com or metrodesk@caller.com, or call 886-3697.
Your Comment Display Options:
Show Flagged Comments Hide Flagged Comments
+ Increase Font Size - Decrease Font Size
Post Your Comments
Post 1 December 19, 2007 at 3:54 a.m.
Corporate Propoganda. If there were certain places where I was more likely to be held accountable for my many transgressions, I would call those places "Hell" too.
(Suggest removal)
Post 2 December 19, 2007 at 6:27 a.m.
This type of propaganda for the corporations should not be repeated in the Caller Times or any newspaper. If they want to voice such an opinion, they should buy ads. It's all part of a conspiracy to ruin juries before there is a trial. This is part of the "lawsuit abuse" lies funded by insurance companies
(Suggest removal)
Post 3 December 19, 2007 at 6:52 a.m.
I agree with Post 3. Whenever anything doesn't go someone's way in this area or they get ANY type of injury, the first thing out of their mouth is "we are looking for an attorney". Folks are always asking someone "Are you going to sue?". Kids tell teachers "I'll just sue you". Have lawsuits become the easy way to make a living here? Seems like it.
(Suggest removal)
Post 4 December 19, 2007 at 7:23 a.m.
Of course Tom Henry is going to attack the credibility of this report.
He and the Bonillas have been ripping off trusting citizens for decades. And how does he justify it? FREE TURKEYS!
(Suggest removal)
Post 5 December 19, 2007 at 7:27 a.m.
The turkey's are the ones that put out this drivel and the foolish ones who eat it up like manna from heaven.
For decades insurance companies have blamed the victims instead of paying claims promptly.
(Suggest removal)
Post 6 December 19, 2007 at 7:36 a.m.
This is why many business owners, like myself, long ago left Corpus Christi. This city is full of losers and attorney's that will represent them.
(Suggest removal)
Post 7 December 19, 2007 at 7:50 a.m.
"I would say they humiliated themselves with the lack of professionalism," Henry said, adding he thought it also was poorly researched.
You mean a lack of professionalism like putting ads on TV saying "This guy is a fraud, just thought I'd tell you...also, if you want to sue the hell out of him give me a call so I can take a percentage"? Celis and Henry are both LOSERS. Sharks and lawyers are the only 2 things on Earth that will eat their own guts if you cut the stomach open....
(Suggest removal)
Post 8 December 19, 2007 at 8:09 a.m.
I challenge any of you who will post criticism of our judicial system and spew your "frivolous lawsuit" propoganda to cite one single instance of a "frivolous lawsuit" resulting in a big verdict in Nueces County, Texas. And don't throw out the usual nonsense about what you heard or what one of your fellow CALA buddies told you. Give ONE specific example.
(Suggest removal)
Post 9 December 19, 2007 at 8:12 a.m.
Post 7, many business owners do very well in Corpus Christi. Maybe you just didn't have what it takes.
(Suggest removal)
Post 10 December 19, 2007 at 8:37 a.m.
Post 7, the city is not "full of losers." We have room for one more now that you're gone.
(Suggest removal)
Post 11 December 19, 2007 at 8:50 a.m.
Post 9
It is not an accident that CC has a reputation for being the most litigious city in Texas. Plaintiff's attorneys move here for that very reason! There have been, and continue to be, frivolous lawsuits that have DESTROYED professional reputations and careers. Certain institutions in this town are veritable ATM machines for people who don't want to work and want to have a job for life. It happens on a regular basis and has been going on for many years.
(Suggest removal)
Post 12 December 19, 2007 at 8:54 a.m.
Post 13, just as I thought. Not one specific example.
(Suggest removal)
Post 13 December 19, 2007 at 8:59 a.m.
What would a group from D.C. have to gai by putting out this report. Most likely nothing. So is it true? And why has it been six years in a row?
(Suggest removal)
Post 14 December 19, 2007 at 9 a.m.
Post 9 - very well said. I join the challenge.
Most of the people screaming about lawsuit abuse don't have a clue what happens when there is a legitimate claim to be paid. Insurance companies say no. They say no, and more often than not people accept that and pay bills the insurance company should be paying.
Then if (and maybe sometimes when) the insurance company comes around to paying doctor bills etc., do the docs pay you back? Anyone here ever gotten a check from a doc saying hey - you know that bill we pressured you into paying - well your insurance company finally paid it. So here's your money back. Doesn't happen.
Lawsuit abuse is a tv fiction. I hope people rely on better information than silly rankings and unfounded CALA generalizations.
(Suggest removal)
Post 15 December 19, 2007 at 9:01 a.m.
Its supposed to be gain
(Suggest removal)
Post 16 December 19, 2007 at 9:07 a.m.
Sounds like a bunch of ambulance chasers have ordered their beaten subordinates to post here on their behalf. Is that you lil Tommy????
(Suggest removal)
Post 17 December 19, 2007 at 9:15 a.m.
Sounds like someone without facts to back up their fears is resorting to name calling. Is that you Rush Limbaugh?
(Suggest removal)
Post 18 December 19, 2007 at 9:17 a.m.
Why to tell it, Post 3. I think there is definitely a link between the education level of a general population in an area and how much attorneys might take advantage of people there. Shudder.
(Suggest removal)
Post 19 December 19, 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
Wow post 18, I think 19 just gave you a cyber beat-down.
(Suggest removal)
Post 20 December 19, 2007 at 9:27 a.m.
Hey 21, you must be one of 19's underlings. Is he paying you in turkeys?
(Suggest removal)
Post 21 December 19, 2007 at 9:31 a.m.
No 22, I'm not one of 19's underlings. I don't even know who 19 is other than he/she is the one who just gave 18 a cyber beat-down.
(Suggest removal)
Post 22 December 19, 2007 at 9:44 a.m.
Post #5 Your comment regarding the Bonilla's is libelous. You owe them an apology!
(Suggest removal)
Post 23 December 19, 2007 at 9:50 a.m.
Look in the yellow pages for attorneys, then see how many are certified. Must be big business in law suits here? I think Corpus has a problem!!!
(Suggest removal)
Post 24 December 19, 2007 at 9:57 a.m.
Ok post 9....lemme take a shot at it.....back in 1992 i was working in Robstown during the time of the Oxychem release. Oxychem accidentaly released some poisonous gases into the air. I know for a fact there were "runners" from various law firms that were going door to door to solicit people to join the Class Action Lawsuit against oxychem. The settlement turned out to be something like 65 million with 22 million going to the 10 law firms involved. People who may have really been hurt by this release received an amount between $500 and $5500 dollars for their troubles. Some of the folks that received the monies, were WORKING with me that day. They were no where near the release and i would bet, quite a few of the folks that received monies were no where near.....one lady was out of town that day, she was asked to sign and she received some money. I believe the company should have been held responsible but in my opinion, this was a frivolous lawsuit....the people that were actually hurt by that release should have received more than $5500 (especially unborn children who were born with severe birth defects during that time). Lawyers receiving 22 million? I'm sure you'll come back with reasons as to why this was NOT a frivolous lawsuit but it's cases like that that leave people with a bad taste in thier mouths for lawyers and thier profession. just an opinion.....don't get the manties in a wad.
(Suggest removal)
Post 25 December 19, 2007 at 10:02 a.m.
Then do it without a lawyer. See what happens.
(Suggest removal)
Post 26 December 19, 2007 at 10:06 a.m.
All you have to do is read this post and it isn't difficult to see why this article is correct and why major corporations stay away from Corpus Christi.
You want frivolous lawsuits filed in Corpus? How about the lady against Celis who WON her case but wants a refund for attorney’s fees because "he wasn't a lawyer".
My girlfriend was involved in a car wreck (it wasn't even her fault, she was sitting at a intersection, another car next her ran the red light, this car was hit and the collision hit her car) but she was still sued as was the driver that ran the light even though there was no medical bills and the insurance at fault was covering all damages. How about the nurse that was murdered in the parking lot of Spohn? Her family is suing the hospital because 'Security wasn't around to stop it' as if the it was their fault! And I'll not even mention all the mold claims/lawsuits. We live in South Texas, of course there is going to be mold...
There are a few for you that I consider frivolous but I guess you would consider them otherwise. In some situations (insurance not paying claims they should, doctors that are grossly negligent, when people refuse to take responsibility for their actions, etc.) but in Corpus people take it to extremes.
(Suggest removal)
Post 27 December 19, 2007 at 10:15 a.m.
Nice try post 26, but the challenge is to cite one specific example of a "frivolous lawsuit" resulting in a big VERDICT. What you just described was a company, which you just said should have been held responsible, choosing to pay an amount of money rather than face a Nueces County jury. Just because a company gets sued and a lawyer gets paid does not mean it's a "frivolous" lawsuit and regardless of what the CALA people might tell you, companies do not pay millions of dollars to settle "frivolous" lawsuits. Still waiting for that big verdict in a frivolous Nueces County lawsuit.
(Suggest removal)
Post 28 December 19, 2007 at 10:16 a.m.
Post 9, 16 and all the other ones leaving in a cave.....I mean Corpus Christi. You must be one benefitting from one of these lawsuites. 80 percent of this town does not have car insurance, but yet they still drive, speed, run stop signs and ask for a free hand out when an accident happens. Do you see the picture I'm painting. This city is run to suite these people. NOT the law abiding, hard working class. I live hoping that one of these law breaking "good" cictizens of this town doesn't hit me to and from work, much less one of my family memebers. Way to go people. You're living in a cave.
(Suggest removal)
Post 29 December 19, 2007 at 10:20 a.m.
Post 28, were any of these cases tried to a verdict? Again, if Spohn paid millions, then they didn't consider the case "frivolous".
(Suggest removal)
Post 30 December 19, 2007 at 10:23 a.m.
What's the 1st thing you see coming out of a hospital or clinic in Corpus Christi? A big billboard with some 2 bit lawyers face on it. No respect and no class. Most American doctors have left C.C. Next time you see a doctor you will see what i mean. C.C is being ruined by these Grifters.
(Suggest removal)
Post 31 December 19, 2007 at 10:29 a.m.
The person with the challenge is changing the definition of frivolous to suit their needs. Because money was paid doesn't mean the suit was legit. This breakdown in simple logic is why the S TX courts are so plaintiff friendly. I have lived here my whole life - I can tell you it is not bliss.
(Suggest removal)
Post 32 December 19, 2007 at 10:32 a.m.
Wow, it really is Rush. Welcome to Corpus. Didn't know you cared.
See? Name calling and fear mongering.
Just be glad that when you are hurt or feel like your rights have been violated, there will be someone there to help you, even though you lambast them when things are going your way.
Really sounds low class, huh?
(Suggest removal)
Post 33 December 19, 2007 at 10:38 a.m.
Oh, c'mon that's just the Oxycontin talkin'!
(Suggest removal)
Post 34 December 19, 2007 at 10:44 a.m.
Look, its very simple. Insurance companies and corporations are very sophisticated. They will not pay large settlements like the one mentioned in post 26 unless they believe a jury will award a large verdict. If juries in a jurisdiction do not award large verdicts in "frivolous" cases, then insurance companies and corporations will not pay substantial amounts of money to settle "frivolous" cases. That's why I'm asking the question, what large verdicts have been awarded in "frivolous" cases in Nueces County that are prompting these corporations to pay large settlements for "frivolous" claims? Perhaps these cases are not "frivolous".
(Suggest removal)
Post 35 December 19, 2007 at 10:46 a.m.
Insurance companies would rather pay claims than lawyer fees. Del Mar College had an EEOC person (lawyer) who encouraged lawsuits against the college. She was finally let go but it angered some board members and employees who got used to the $$$ and a job for life. What happened? The president that took action left town and the employees, and board members are still there.
(Suggest removal)
Post 36 December 19, 2007 at 10:52 a.m.
"One section of the report chastised Corpus Christi attorney Thomas J. Henry.."What do you call someone who chases the ambulance chaser?"
Oh, man...now that's a beatdown!
(Suggest removal)
Post 37 December 19, 2007 at 10:58 a.m.
I just knew a comment like Post 24 would pop up here.
(Suggest removal)
Post 38 December 19, 2007 at 10:58 a.m.
Good point 38, sounds like a very unbiased report by an organization with the words "Tort Reform" in its name.
(Suggest removal)
Post 39 December 19, 2007 at 11:02 a.m.
post 31
Haven't you ever considered it’s cheaper to pay out then fight? I guarantee Spohn figured it would be cheaper to pay millions now then run up millions in legal fees and risk paying out 2x as much later.
Put yourself in their position, knowing full well people in corpus are known for suing at the drop of a hat, and these same people either elect the judges or will serve on a jury to decide your case, would YOU take the chance that they will agree with you (the big bad company) or will you just "cut your losses" and settle.
The end effect is the company raises their rates to cover their losses or close down and leave the area. Welcome to economics 101 now you see one of the reasons why Corpus is in the state it’s in. Why doctors leave, Lawyers have such a huge chunk of the phone book, and insurance is way more expensive then it should be.
(Suggest removal)
Post 40 December 19, 2007 at 11:13 a.m.
Post 31
To answer your question,
Regarding my girl friend, no her part was dismissed but it cost her 2 days work and $1,000 hiring a lawyer to defend her self from a "frivolous lawsuit". I don't know about the other guy but I'll bet the insurance settles like they usually do. Point was, the insurance was going to replace the truck (in full) but that wasn't enough, he wanted "pain and suffering for the mental anguish of loosing his truck" while she was just happy that they paid the rental while fixing her car.
Regarding the nurse and Spohn, I was under the impression Spohn settled which of course just proves the point its cheaper to cut losses then fight, especially in Corpus.
Regarding mold, I personally don't know about any "lawsuits" but I'm sure there were some as well as numerous threats regarding them and huge payouts. Why else did, companies started charging out the roof for insurance and even quit writing new policies for awhile? The greed of the few cost everyone else. “There is no such thing as a free lunch”
Post 28
(Suggest removal)
Post 41 December 19, 2007 at 11:20 a.m.
he family of the slain nurse are not suing because there was not enough security, thery are suing because the hospital knew there was a predator lurking around the parking garage and did nothing about it. the man had been reported several times, but no additional security was added and the employees were not told about it so they could make decesions about where to park safely. The did nothing to try and prevent the situation.
(Suggest removal)
Post 42 December 19, 2007 at 11:30 a.m.
The reason this study is falsely stating that this is a "judical hellhole" is that they know that the media will report the false stories here and attempt to prevent persons access to the courts. This entire sham of "frivolous lawsuits' is based on the fact that this is an area controlled by the special interest groups and this plot or scheme cannot be perpetutated anywhere else where the area is not controlled. Corpus will never progress until these hidden interests of insurance companies is halted.
(Suggest removal)
Post 43 December 19, 2007 at 11:46 a.m.
post 44 You seem to be an expert on falsely stating...
There is no person/ entity preventing access to the courts and therefore any conspiracy you allege does not exist.
Please explain the "hidden interests" of insurance companies. Insurance companies charge a premium to cover a risk and hope to make a profit. If a claim is presented to the insurance company they are contractually bound to pay the claim if it is a covered risk. Are you not aware of how this works?
(Suggest removal)
Post 44 December 19, 2007 at 12:01 p.m.
#9 the article is about SOUTH TEXAS not just Nueces county and I take your challenge based on SOUTH TEXAS … here is part of and article from the CCT in 2006. The verdict was in Rio Grande City … 32 million to a 71 year old man who had heart disease for 20 years … give me a break! He didn’t even take the drug for the time period that the study said it would take to do the damage.
“A state jury found Merck & Co. liable Friday for the death of a 71-year-old man who had a fatal heart attack within a month of taking its since-withdrawn painkiller Vioxx and ordered the company to pay $32 million. Merck said it would appeal.
The damage award will likely be reduced because of a state law capping punitive damages.
The jury of 10 men and two women deliberated for about seven hours over two days before returning the verdict in favor of the family of Leonel Garza, who had suffered from heart disease for more than 20 years and had taken Vioxx for less than a month.”
“"This is the first case in the country where short-term usage has been found by a jury to be causatory of heart attacks," said plaintiffs' attorney Joe Escobedo. "We hope this will go a long way in dispelling this '18-month' science fiction myth."
Vioxx was found to greatly increase the risk of heart attacks in people who took the painkiller for 18 months or longer.
"I just don't think there's any basis to the verdict that came down today," defense lawyer Richard Josephson said.
Lehman Brothers analyst Tony Butler said he was "a little shocked by the verdict given all of Mr. Garza's health problems." He thinks Merck is pursing the correct strategy by trying each case individually because in the past drug companies have only forked over big settlements when they entered into massive class action suits.”
(Suggest removal)
Post 45 December 19, 2007 at 12:31 p.m.
Sounds like a bunch of personal injury lawyers trying to defend their lowlife likestyles. I remember when being a lawyer was an honorable vocation. I had a grandfather who was a federal judge and several uncles who practiced law. Now being a lawyer is the same as being a used car dealer.
(Suggest removal)
Post 46 December 19, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.
HAHA...Post 9 just got OWNED!
(Suggest removal)
Post 47 December 19, 2007 at 12:54 p.m.
Dear No. 44: Bay Area Citizens Against lawsuit Abuse is funded by insurance companies and they are attempting to prevent access to the courts by portraying lawsuits as frivolous. Insurance companies deny valid claims every day. When they do not pay the only right you have is to hire a lawyer and sue them. You have a hard time suing them now because of fraudulent groups like them and fraudulent articles like this. Hope this is simple enough for you.
.
(Suggest removal)
Post 48 December 19, 2007 at 1:04 p.m.
Take your pick #9
"Jury awards $42M to family of boy who died in Expedition"
http://www.caller.com/news/2005/sep/15/j...
Local couple receives $19M in damages
http://www.caller.com/news/2006/dec/15/l...
Kleberg jury gives $1.2M to mother of man killed in crash with oil truck
http://www.caller.com/news/2006/dec/08/k...
Jury awards Bay Ltd. $117 million
http://www.caller.com/news/2006/aug/03/j...
$29M award in tire lawsuit
http://www.caller.com/news/2006/jan/28/2...
Jury awards $30M in suit against Ford
http://www.caller.com/news/2005/oct/04/j...
(Suggest removal)
Post 49 December 19, 2007 at 1:19 p.m.
Don't forget to add that we have the highest teen pregnancy rate in the country, the city is considered one of the "dumbest cities in America," and has some of the "worst drivers anywhere." These quotes have been published by Men's Health magazine. I think it's time for me to get the heck out of Dodge!
(Suggest removal)
Post 50 December 19, 2007 at 1:20 p.m.
Post 49
I'm not post 44 but I'll answer anyway.
I'll agree with part of your post in principle (regarding insurance not paying and having your only recourse to sue when they don’t) but as post 50 points out, not ALL lawsuits fall into that category. And many even in that category are a case of “I think I should get more then they gave me”
I hope thats simple enough for you.
(Suggest removal)
Post 51 December 19, 2007 at 1:51 p.m.
it is a shame, i know that several years ago, a contract worker allegedly fell from a four foot ladder because he was wearing
greasy gloves and allegedly hurt his back. His wife or girl friend
sued because The alleged injury interfered with her sex life. GIVE
ME A BREAK! IS THAT LAWSUIT ABUSE OR WHAT!
(Suggest removal)
Post 52 December 19, 2007 at 2 p.m.
I would posit that the recent federal silica MDL Daubert hearings (and the subsequent mass-remand to MS), along with Judge Jack's recommendations for sanctions against Campbell Cherry, et. al, are strong evidence of lawsuit abuse.
Arguing that this example doesn't count as "frivolous" simply because a jury didn't hand out a jackpot reward to any of the 15,000+ sham plaintiffs is disingenuous at best. Every single one of those defendants had to pay huge legal bills to defend themselves against fabricated cases with fabricated evidence that drug on for several years before the truth finally came to light.
I'll hit post now and wait for your response.
(Suggest removal)
Post 53 December 19, 2007 at 2:02 p.m.
"The jury of 10 men and two women deliberated for about seven hours over two days before returning the verdict ..."
post 46. Now - those people sat through real live evidence. And deliberated for a long time before they made the decision they did. You have rumors and think you can make a better decision.
Hmm. Same old same old.
(Suggest removal)
Post 54 December 19, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.
Post 50 demonstrates exactly what the problem is with CALA. The first case cited deals with the DEATH OF A TEN YEAR OLD CHILD!!! How in the world can any of you lump that in the category of "frivolous" claims. Just because a jury awards a large verdict does not mean the case is "frivolous". I'm sure when these parents go to visit this child's grave, they don't consider the case frivolous. How heartless can a human being possibly be. Anyway, still waiting for that frivolous Nueces County verdict.
(Suggest removal)
Post 55 December 19, 2007 at 2:28 p.m.
Justice is spelled ( CASH )
(Suggest removal)
Post 56 December 19, 2007 at 2:47 p.m.
49, 45 here How is access to courts denied? You can hire any attorney you want for whatever purpose. I don't see how raising legitimate concerns about the abuse of the legal system and reporting how S TX courts are statistically out of line with most courts nationally is fraud. Please look up the definition. Perhaps you are trying to give another example of "falsely stating..."
(Suggest removal)
Post 57 December 19, 2007 at 2:54 p.m.
Post 56 demonstrates the problem with the sue happy culture of this area.
How does 42 million bring the child back? It doesn't. Did the family keep the money and are they now living high on a hog enjoying the fruits or did they do the honorable thing and donate the money to help support other victims of tragedy. Its one thing to sue to make a statement and fix a wrong (or bring it to light) but its another if your after money (and it doesn’t take 42 million to make a statement).
Let me put it another way, the amount of money they were awarded was equivalent to 700 salaries (at 60k a year). What would have happened had Ford laid people off to pay for it. Does this tragedy merit risking 700 families of their lively hood who had nothing to do with it? What if the damage was worse and the company had to shut down, thousands would have lost their job all because of one accident. That’s justice?!?!
Bah you don’t understand and never will. You are probably one of those that would sue your mother if you thought you could get something out of it…
(Suggest removal)
Post 58 December 19, 2007 at 2:54 p.m.
Well then, how about this one... In May of 1999, there was an explosion at Coastal Refinery here in Corpus. Daniel Torres, William Bourland, and David Natividad were among those injured. As is the practice in the modernized world, and as is required by law in TX, they received Worker's Compensation benefits for their injuries. Yet later, they hired an attorney in town to go after Coastal's holding company, simply because they had deeper pockets. See generally http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archiv...
But wait, that's contrary to years of precedent in TX case law, not to mention the fact that it is directly in conflict with the TX WC code. They can't bring suit when their case is barred like that, can they?
Sure they can, this is Corpus, a 6-time judicial hellhole, remember? The jury awarded the plaintiff's $122.5 million. (This would be the "verdict," for those of you playing along at home).
It was only on appeal, more than five years later, that the 13th Court of Appeals overturned the result, rendering a take nothing verdict for the plaintiffs. See -- http://www.13thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/op...
So, before you make the argument that "hey, that just means the system works, a bogus verdict got corrected eventually... " sadly, that was not the end of the case.
The plaintiffs, in an astonishing display of chutzpah, asked for a rehearing and then appealed the case to the TX Supreme Court... who promptly denied the petition for review without comment. See -- http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/Hi...
So, let's go over our list here... we have a case that should have never been filed in the first place -- check, Which drug through three different court systems, over the span of 5+ years, wasting judicial resources that could have been spent on legit cases -- roger that. And which cost a local company hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, which they will never have reimbursed by plaintiffs or their attorneys, even though they followed the law and were in the right the entire time -- correctamundo!
I would say that qualifies, even by your shifting definition, as "frivolous."
What do I win?
(Suggest removal)
Post 59 December 19, 2007 at 2:59 p.m.
Post 53, thanks for yet another unsubstantiated unprovable example of lawsuit abuse. This should go along with the one about the guy that sued an airline because he claimed that he was molested by a space alien while in the restroom of an airliner at 30,000 feet. The airline decided to pay the guy $100,000 instead of fighting it. Did you hear about that one? Probably not, I just made it up. But I'm sure you and the rest of your CALA buddies will be repeating it as an example of lawsuit abuse at your next meeting.
(Suggest removal)
Post 60 December 19, 2007 at 3:07 p.m.
Post #56 …That child died because it was broad-sided by someone who ran a red light … how is that Fords fault??? He would have died in any car … this jury in “Nueces county” found that Ford was 90% at fault??? You must be kidding me.
Yes it is a tragedy that a child died but Ford is not at fault here and this case is exactly what the article is talking about. The jury and judges in south Texas jump at any opportunity to give plaintiffs money from big businesses no matter what the facts are.
(Suggest removal)
Post 61 December 19, 2007 at 3:18 p.m.
59 is correct in an example of the effects of lawsuits. According to the article,a S TX jury that can be easily swayed by an emotional appeal as demonstrated by post 56.
(Suggest removal)
Post 62 December 19, 2007 at 3:24 p.m.
Specific example: There was an OBGYN doctor here that was sued, because unfortunatly a very sick baby passed away due to some of the choices the mother made. The doctor was found at no fault but the jury decided the family needed somewhere in the neighborhood of a mill. I am truly sorry the baby passed away but that is crap. PI Lawyers in general are crooks. The reason I say this is for instance the Firestone tires lawsuits, these people were trully hurt and deserve every penny they got but the lawyers pulled 60% off the top. I understand needing to be paid for your time but 60% give me a break. I know my facts are right, because I got them from a person that was working on the case.
(Suggest removal)
Post 63 December 19, 2007 at 3:38 p.m.
Why can't we accept the fact that accidents happen, people get sick, injured and die? All these lawsuits imply there is no such thing as an accident, only yet-to-be-determined negligence.
(Suggest removal)
Post 64 December 19, 2007 at 3:43 p.m.
Post 3 - is correct.
Thomas J. can you provide factual data to prove the report is "poorly researched". And what practice are you comparing "lack of professionalism".
.
(Suggest removal)
Post 65 December 19, 2007 at 4:38 p.m.
Bottom line is greed. Post 34 is right!
(Suggest removal)
Post 66 December 19, 2007 at 4:51 p.m.
The jury pool of people in this town doesn't care about real circumstances, just perceived justice. Even the lawyers and judges are this way. In the next couple of years, it'll be run by descendants of illegal’s, then we're all jacked.
(Suggest removal)
Post 67 December 19, 2007 at 5:02 p.m.
I love this paper, keep it strong Pat and Libby
(Suggest removal)
Post 68 December 19, 2007 at 7:15 p.m.
I love our jury system. The jury is the only refuge from the autocrats and ruthless capitalists who can buy political influence to thwart the rights our constitution gives those injured because of the negligence of anyone, including the government. Insurance companies and their legions hate the fact that juries can make them pay, even though the jury is never told insurance is behind the scene financing elaborate defensive schemes and delay tactics to frustrate the injured person and their lawyer. Allstate is being fined $25,000 per day in Missouri because they will not produce the McKinzey documents, that outline their national strategy to defeat legitimate claims and prejudice potential jurors with support for clans like CALA. and the frivolous lawsuit drumbeat. The strategy has worked, because folks believe all the banter about how we are all hurt when a truly injured child recovers what an honest jury awards in damages. The truth is coming out, and juries are waking up to the reality. It's about money, stupid.
(Suggest removal)
Post 69 December 19, 2007 at 9:46 p.m.
Why Does anyone listen to these people???!!!
Bay area Citizzenz and other Tort reform groups are irrelevant.
Just a bunch of greedy people who don't want any accountability when they hurt people
AND you know when you hurt someone really BAD then the medical bills are going to be huge. People like these would rather have sick and injured people kicked to the gutter if its going to cost them a penny. they are arrogant and can't stand to have their bloated egos bruised by a jury.
Hoooray for areas like Corpus where the juries still believe in justice.
(Suggest removal)
Post 70 December 19, 2007 at 11:31 p.m.
So is it true that when you win a settlement and it takes a year to get to you does that mean that your attorney has been holding it all this time in his account so he can earn the interest before deciding to give you the money? Aren't you suppose to get paid as soon as the money is sent to your attorney?
(Suggest removal)
Post 71 December 20, 2007 at 12:53 a.m.
Post 56
It is always sad when a child dies but the lawsuit states that Ford is responsible because they don't have laminated glass as side windows like the windshield. What? Watts refers to the glass as a "child restraint system". That was one of the most frivolous lawsuits ever! Imagine the lawsuits because people burned up in cars who's doors jammed in an accident and caught on fire. You could never escape a car with "laminated" glass all around. Laminated glass was invented by Henry Ford in the 1920's to keep flying rocks from hitting the occupants. It was never a "child restraint".
(Suggest removal)
Post 72 December 20, 2007 at 6:39 a.m.
Post 9 - "cite one single instance of a "frivolous lawsuit" resulting in a big verdict in Nueces County, Texas."
Sep 19, 2003 - "Corpus Christi, TX, and surrounding Nueces County number among the nation's "judicial hellholes," in the words of one tort reform group. Area physicians would agree—six of every 10 had at least one malpractice claim filed against them during the four years from 1998 through 2001, according to the Texas Board of Medical Examiners."
"Few have made it hotter for local doctors than personal-injury attorney Thomas J. Henry. Until recently, a giant sign advertising his services stood across the street from Driscoll Children's Hospital, greeting ambulances—no chasing needed."
"Last year, though, Henry received some unwelcome publicity when a judge fined him $50,000 for bringing a frivolous, harassing suit against ED physician Stephen Smith and internist Robert Low."
Frivolous lawsuits are so common in Texas, they're considered the norm. Even the STATE gets in on the action, suing anyone and everyone associated with a problem no matter their responsibility or ability to do anything about it, either before or after the fact.
Just BEING THERE as a representative of some company will get you sued, anytime there's an accident of any sort, whether or not you were involved in any way. My company got sued once and our only involvement was having a vehicle at the location. We still had to get a lawyer, file tons of paperwork and appear in court. NONE OF THAT IS CHEAP and THAT'S what frivolous litigation is all about! Lawyers who simply sue everyone in sight, every time someone gets hurt should be disbarred! That would eliminate about half of the "South Texas" variety...
(Suggest removal)
Post 73 December 20, 2007 at 7:57 a.m.
OK boys and girls, Post 9 here. Thanks to all of you CALA clones for playing the game. Special thanks to Post 60, the only one who even arguably was able to cite a specific example in Nueces County. Good work counselor, too bad you could find nothing from this century. Post 75, the rules of the game specifically required a large Nueces County jury verdict in a frivolous claim. Your reference involved neither Nueces County not a jury verdict, but thanks for trying.
So what does all of this prove? Well, it proves my point. 24 hours have now passed and all you could come up with is a 1999 case that was reversed by our Court of Appeals. Is our jury system perfect? Of course not. But as all of you demonstrated by your inability to meet my challenge, frivolous lawsuits are not a problem of epidemic proportions as the insurance industry would have us believe.
I wish you all well and certainly hope none of you are ever injured as the result of someone else's negligence to the point of needing legal redress. However, if you are, I hope you find a qualified attorney to represent you. I just hope you don't have people like yourselves on your jury.
Again, thanks for playing. Gotta go now. Peace/Out.
(Suggest removal)
Post 74 December 20, 2007 at 9 a.m.
post 71 "Just a bunch of greedy people who don't want any accountability when they hurt people"
You could apply this to personal injury attorneys and many plaintiffs
(Suggest removal)
Post 75 December 20, 2007 at 9:06 a.m.
post 76 Seems you were defeated in your challenge, not only by the original article, but the examples given by posters. I hope you are never a defendant with a South Texas jury. It would be ironic that ignorant people that can be swayed by emotion and don't have the capacity to evaluate facts could take away everything from you and your family.
(Suggest removal)
Post 76 December 20, 2007 at 10:16 a.m.
I agree with post 78. Most lawsuits never make it to jury verdicts because of past circumstance (who is going to be stupid enough to take a case to a jury that will award millions for no reason like in the examples shown above).
There were several examples, some that went to jury, others that did and were appealed, as well as examples of settlements and all for around here. Some were multi millions and others were not but all were frivolous. It doesn’t take millions to run someone’s life (it would take thousands to hurt most people for years) and don’t be a sore looser either. Just admit when you are wrong and move on. Enjoy the spoils of your sue happy mentality. May you not cost anyone their jobs or ruin any lives in your efforts to extort money from innocent people and sleep peacefully at night (in your shoes I couldn't)
Merry Christmas.
(Suggest removal)
Post 77 December 20, 2007 at 10:28 a.m.
Everyone loves to hate the personal injury law industry until a defective product, bad policy, or gross negligence kills or severly harms someone you love. Its there to police corporate america....there are injustices on both sides, however these BACALA people are judgemental snobs that do not understand the process. In their eyes, all lawyers are crooks and no corporation/person should EVER be sued. They need to get off the high horse and take a "grown up" reasonable approach at looking this these issues. When Connie Scott and Karl Rove of all people shoot their mouths off carelessly, they only further kill their own credibility. Reasonable people realize that there are two sides to every story...
(Suggest removal)
Post 78 December 20, 2007 at 11:08 a.m.
post 80 please take your own advice.If reasonable people realize there are 2 sides to every story, why do you not extend that courtesy to CALA? Unless you, by your own definition, are not reasonable.
Emotional appeals, changing the definition of words to suit your prupose and a breakdown of basic logic (as demonstrated above ) lend the "hellhole" article credibility. Ironic
(Suggest removal)
Post 79 December 20, 2007 at 11:20 a.m.
(This comment was removed by the site staff.)
Post 80 December 20, 2007 at 3:07 p.m.
Admit it post 9/76, you were owned. You asked for specific examples, and got several Then you changed the rules and asked for a verdict. Boom, someone delivered. Now you cry that it was too old of a case? Dude, that case didn't "end" until 3 yrs ago, which would be smack dab in the middle of Corpus' 6-yr reign of hellhole-ishness.
Like someone earlier said, frivolous doesn't mean that a jury ruled the wrong way, only today, and only during the hours of 2:37 p.m. to 2:41 p.m., or whatever you'll change your rules to next. Frivolous means without any merit.
(Suggest removal)
Post 81 December 20, 2007 at 8:21 p.m.
I remember the Oxy release, payouts, and the used car lots were the busiest they've ever been. This report did nothing but reiterate, for the sixth time, how lazy people are. Get a job.
(Suggest removal)
Post 82 December 20, 2007 at 11:23 p.m.
Dear post No. 52: Please reread your posting, it does not make any sense. As near as I can tell you are stating that not all lawsuits fall into the category of insurance companies failure to pay. Yes, that is correct. Some lawsuits involved "conservative" President Bush petitioning the courts up through the United States Supreme court to get Florida to stop counting the votes. Some lawsuits involve "conservative" Jim Lago obtaining a declaratory judgment against the radio station he worked for in a frivolous lawsuit proceeding. Some lawuits involve sexual harassments lawsuits against conservative talk show host Bill O'Reilly who settled the case.
.
(Suggest removal)
Post 83 December 21, 2007 at 4:49 a.m.
#1 is right on the money.......the makers of Voixx have gotten away with murder for far too long.
If these paid propaganda brown noser's want to see a judicial hell hole they should take their families on vacation in Iraq.
Selling defective products with knowledge of the defect but choose to keep deceiving the public is just as good as a snake oil salesman.
Deceptive trade Practices, and they insist in proclaiming and portraying their product is worth "buying".
Not if these "corporations" told the public the truth.
What is pathetic, is the insurance industry pays for the product knowing it is defective.
(Suggest removal)
Post 84 December 21, 2007 at 6:41 a.m.
I hired a Bonilla to represent me at a criminal trial, but they put some other attorney that works for them to do the job, who I feel was a rookie and he did not do a very good job. These Bonilla do not care about the person, just on how much they can suck out of your wallet, and believe me they tired to do thier best to suck my wallet dry. I found out more information about my case than he did. I would never hire a Bonilla again and I would never tell someone to use a Bonilla.
(Suggest removal)
Post 85 December 21, 2007 at 7:37 a.m.
I think I need to see if it's justified for starting a class action suit against the manufacture of aluminum wheels for not notifing me of the difficulty cleaning the wheels and not recommending the best type of cleaner to use.
Do you think this would work?
(Suggest removal)
Post 86 December 21, 2007 at 9:17 a.m.
post 87 You have a case and should expect lots of cash from a S TX jury.
(Suggest removal)
Post 87 December 21, 2007 at 9:21 a.m.
post 84 former VP Gore also petitioned the courts. He lost. The other cases you mention only make the case against frivolous lawsuits. Was that your intent? Or were you trying to show post 52 an example of not making sense.
(Suggest removal)
Post 88 December 21, 2007 at 9:29 a.m.
#77 - It's not "a bunch of greedy people who don't want any accountability when they hurt people" It's the fact that there are a bunch of greedy people out there that don't want to get off their lazy butts and make a living like everyone else. All they are going to do is sit around and wait for that big paycheck to come rolling in.
And for those that want an example of lawsuit abuse:
A lawsuit was just filed against my boss and I cause we couldn't get someone's POS house sold for them at the severely overpriced amount that they wanted for it. Even though we haven't had the listing in almost 6 months, the owner thinks that we should have to pay his mortgage, insurance, taxes and utilities from the time that we listed the house in Jan. 2007 until today. So does this fall under the frivolous lawsuit category?
(Suggest removal)
Post 89 December 21, 2007 at 10:09 a.m.
post 91 You misunderstand. The quote was from another poster calling CALA people and tort reform advocates "a bunch of greedy people..." My post 77 was just pointing out the hypocrisy in the statement.
I read a survey where more Americans believe the way to wealth is through the lottery and lawsuits than personal savings. Personal savings would mean you have to work for it and make responsible decisions or as you said "...get off their lazy butts and make a living like everyone else"
You personal story illustrates a good point. If things don't go as expected then someone has to pay, instead of reduce expectations. Ridiculous.
(Suggest removal)
Post 90 December 21, 2007 at 1:36 p.m.
Let's see, a Washington D.C. politcal action committee or special interest group is criticizing the integrity of the judicial system in our home of South Texas? Such groups will say what they are paid to say. We have earned our repsect and paid our dues here, they have not.
(Suggest removal)
Post 91 December 21, 2007 at 2:13 p.m.
post 93 This concept is being demonstrated by the objective, uninterested Thomas J Henry and Mikal Watts. absurd
(Suggest removal)
Post 92 December 21, 2007 at 2:22 p.m.
post 93
Earned our respect and paid our dues? How do you mean? Sounds like your just trying to justify a sue happy mentality to me.
(Suggest removal)
Post 93 December 22, 2007 at 4:12 p.m.
There doesn't have to be a VERDICT to have lawsuit abuse. By merely bringing a frivilous lawsuit, there is a waste of time and money as it hits the judicial system. By the mere fact that a person or company has to defend themselves against something before it is thrown out of a court is alone a waste or time, money, and resources.
To insist that a verdict is the only proof of lawsuit abuse is by far ignorance on your part.
(Suggest removal)
Post 94 December 25, 2007 at 11:07 p.m.
More Brilliance shining through from CALA supporters/members. If a lawsuit is filed against YOU (even if a significant settlement is paid), then it MUST be "FRIVOLOUS"; however, when YOU file a lawsuit (as CALA supporters/members are known to do) the lawsuit all of a sudden becomes legitimate!
1. Texas' arcane delegate system suddenly comes into play
2. Clinton will be at fairgrounds
3. Fairgrounds staff readies for Clinton's arrival
4. Yup, Texans like big, open spaces
5. Hola, Hillary
6. Painkiller patches recalled
7. Keeping up with Clinton
8. Badgers battle back, beat 'Cats
9. Where they stand
