Today's Offers:

News

W.Va. employers especially scared this Halloween, CALA says
10/30/2007 8:32 PM By Chris Dickerson  -Kanawha Bureau

SZ200_SCohen.jpg

Cohen

CHARLESTON - A statewide watchdog group is warning leaders at the capitol this Halloween that employers are finding West Virginia to be a "pretty scary" place to create jobs.

West Virginia Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse predicts a $10 million "shakedown" over a slice of cheese on a burger will especially haunt this state's job market.

The so-called "hold the cheese" suit against McDonald's, filed this summer in Monongalia, demands that much for the "pain and suffering" from an allergic reaction to the dairy product and the "mental anguish" sustained by the plaintiff's mother and friend.

"This doozey glows like an oversized jack-o-lantern," WV CALA Executive Director Steve Cohen said. "What is really terrifying is that courts in this state would overlook the plaintiff's failure to check for himself if the sandwich he ordered was prepared to his precise specifications."

The international attention on West Virginia this summer from the drive-thru order at the Star City McDonald's "is as welcoming to employers as a wicked witch," Cohen said. "But (Attorney General) Darrell McGraw's pranks have struck about as much fear in the hearts of our seniors."

Cohen said older West Virginians are giving the AG a big "boo" over his conversion of lawsuit settlement dollars into "essentially a political slush fund for his own pumpkin patches."

WV CALA says McGraw's "creepy spending" jeopardizes a $4.1 million federal Medicaid match for our state's poor and disabled.

Cohen said employers also will regard Gov. Joe Manchin as a "big scaredy cat" for not vetoing a hallow venue reform bill the lawsuit industry "spooked him into signing."

"West Virginia courts are viewed as a trick-or-treat haven for costume-wearing personal injury lawyers and their out-of-state plaintiffs," Cohen said.

"The broken legal system here rattles like a skeleton. Without meaningful reform, employers will look with terror at their prospects to successfully create jobs here."

EMAIL A FRIEND | PRINT | DIGG THIS | POST TO DEL.ICIO.US

Comments on this article

  • CALA

    Mr. Cohen might want to crack a law book before he complains about how the "courts would overlook the plaintiff's failure [to take personal responsibility]." Who/what does he mean by "the courts?" It's up to the jury to decide what the plaintiff's culpability is - not "the court's." There is no one person in the system who evaluates lawsuits for merit then rids the system of frivilous lawsuits. Does Mr. Cohen not know this country has something called "The Constitution"? The problem with people like Steve Cohen is they don't explain exactly how to solve the problem of frivilous lawuits. How would Mr. Cohen weed out frivilous lawsuits? Would he have the clerks at the courthouse review the suits filed to see if they have merit? Okay, will Mr. Cohen then require circuit clerks (paper pushers by definition) to have law degrees? What if they make a bad decision because they don't have all the facts? What then? Has Mr. Cohen ever heard of a motion for summary judgement? That is a motiion filed by the defense when a case is meritless. Judges are loath to grant summary judgments because the standard for granting them is high. Motions for summary judgment are risky to judges because they are very vulnerable to being overturned by the Supreme Court and judges don't like being reversed. The reason the standard is high on such motions is because the system does not like any one person to have the power to usurp the duty of the jury. Why? Because too much power lends itself to abuse. We can't have a system where one person (i.e. judges) have too much power because then the system becomes corrupted. Dessiminators of misinformation like Mr. Cohen, have the public thinking that the court system is an automatic jackpot. Mr. Cohen does more harm than good for his "cause." Mr. Cohen's belief, which he spreads far and wide, that the system pays off to every crack pot who files a suit simply motivates more of the same. The fact is, lawyers like the one who filed this cheese suit do so counting on insurance companies to hand out nuisance settlements - that is what promotes frivilous lawsuits. Most companies figure a nuisance fee is cheaper than defense costs. When insurance companies implement a no-settlement policicy in absence of liability is when these suits will stop. Instead companies like McDonalds hire local defense firms to fight such suits. Then the defense firm treats the client like a money machine. By the time the local defense firm squeezes out every penny they can without getting caught, they have gouged the clients for piles of money. Then the company remembers the defense costs and when the next stupid case comes along they say "give this clown enough money to shut him up, it's cheaper than paying these defense vampires. . . " So you see, it's the very system CALA pimps for (the insurance industry and big corporations) that promotes frivilous lawsuits. And it's the defense lawyers, not the plaintiff's lawyers, who are the real thieves. Mr. Cohen might also want to ask judges why they don't grant 11(b) motions more often. Such motions are in place to implement sanctions against a lawyer who files a frivilous suit. But no one ever moves for them because judges won't grant them. The day lawyers like the "cheese" suit lawyer start ponying up for filing stupid cases is the day they will start thinking twice before filing them. Mr. Cohen is barking up the wrong tree. And why doesn't Cohen admit that his real goal is to eliminate the whole notion of culpability from the system? Responsibility costs big corporations and the insurance industry a lot of money and they don't like it. Isn't that right Mr. Cohen? Kay

    by Kay

    url:

SEND US YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS ARTICLE:

* - Required fields

Subject: *
Message: *
Contact Name: *
Contact URL:
Contact Email: *
This Is CAPTCHA Image
Write the characters in the image above: