(Ind., filed February 19, 2016): Arguing that admissibility of “phantom damages” as evidence impedes the search for the truth and unnecessarily makes the trial process much less efficient. Also argues that even if the Court agrees the evidence of payment from a government insurer should be excluded, it should allow for an offset of the phantom damages against the plaintiff’s compensatory damages aware, or otherwise allow the defendant to introduce evidence of the provider’s willingness to discount charges for other patients.
Yesterday, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania issued a ruling that makes the state even more appealing to trial lawyers by removing the need to prove a business was fraudulent or negligent under the state’s consumer protection law. The Court […]
Trial lawyers’ spending on covid ads last year surpassed $400,000
Liability protections needed at state level
Legislature moving on bills to address covid liability concerns
Trial lawyers’ spending on covid ads last year surpassed $650,000
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes about a worrisome trend involving California “lemon law” suits.
