The committee fighting a ballot measure that would limit the amount courts could award attorneys who win certain negligence cases against health-care providers understandably has plenty of financial support from law firms and others across Arkansas.
The Committee to Protect AR Families, fighting such a misguided constitutional change in the law, raised almost $410,000 from 54 contributions during August, plus nearly $2,000 in work from several law firms.
Seems pretty obvious to me there are plenty of lawyers who don't want to see Arkansas voters approve this tort-reform amendment known as Issue 4.
A news account by reporter John Moritz explained that the amendment is primarily endorsed by doctors, nursing-home owners and pharmacists, many of whom contributed to a committee that covered the expense of soliciting enough signatures from voters to get Issue 4 placed on the ballot. Their group calls itself Health Care Access for Arkansans.
The story said this is one of six proposed constitutional amendments and an initiated act now on the Nov. 8 ballot. Some are facing court challenges.
Outspoken supporters, like Arkansas Advocates for Nursing Home Residents, led by the relentlessly aggressive Martha Deaver of Conway, rightly insist that attorneys who represent elderly and/or disabled victims of alleged negligence and abuse should not be limited to a cap of one-third of the total damages in such cases.
"Who would ever seek a limit on damages if not the ones accused of committing the abuses?" said Deaver, whose group regularly collects and analyzes inspection records of each nursing home and care facility.
In addition to such a limitation, Issue 4 would require the state legislature to establish a limit of at least $250,000 for noneconomic damages like suffering and pain.
I'll bet those responsible for causing or enabling such injury would like to minimize their financial liability and risk. But I also believe the good people of Arkansas are wise enough to see what's up with Issue 4 and how it benefits those inflicting damage more than those who receive it.
I always will stand with those in care homes on the receiving end of negligence and abuse, especially the voiceless men and women confined in such homes who have no public clout other than a family or advocacy willing to head into a courtroom to redress their grievances.
To that end, voters will decide soon whether they prefer to better protect the financial legal obligations of those who create serious, even fatal, consequences to their behavior, or protect those on the receiving end of those very consequences.
I know how I'll be casting my ballot when it comes to Issue 4. I'm hoping enough of you also will do so, so convincingly that this idea is never again considered.
Department's catch-22
Members of the Washington County Quorum Court and its beleaguered Road Department have a catch-22 of sorts on their hands today.
Seems the county has some pressing road construction and maintenance needs that need to be completed as soon as possible. But it's my understanding the work can't be properly completed (especially with any speed) without machinery and equipment that can git 'er done.
And acquiring that kind of equipment likely will cost a million or so dollars. Now the Road Department is asking the court for that much above last year's budget, despite $1.9 million sitting unspent in the department's account.
Some Quorum Court members (read Eva Madison) have a problem with tacking another million onto the chunk already in the department account. They say why not use the available surplus to get on with finishing badly needed projects.
Department Superintendent Charles Ward says the $1.9 million hasn't been used because planned projects couldn't be completed as quickly as they could have been if the equipment that needs replacing had been already up and running.
In fairness, it's not at all unusual for various departments in Washington County to have budgetary surpluses in their accounts. And it's become almost expected over the years for the Quorum Court to draw from the 40 percent of tax revenue supposedly dedicated to the Road Department to help fill shortfalls in other areas. That means the actual percentage the department's been receiving is closer to 23 percent.
The road department naturally says, well, if you folks hadn't been taking a dump-truck load from those funds, we'd have enough to do a lot more, and much more quickly. At least that's the way I understand what's been going on down there of late.
The quandary gets even more winding and twisted when Quorum Court members ask for the wheres and wherefores and overall plans for specific projects to be undertaken, but the road department doesn't provide those documents.
Aren't we glad we elect folks to get all this kind of stuff paved over for us?
------------v------------
Mike Masterson's column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at [email protected].
Editorial on 09/27/2016