Bob Inglis: Panders to Uninformed

One of my litmus tests for politicians are whether they lie about tort reform.

Especially, in Upstate, South Carolina, where our juries are the most conservative in the nation, the idea we would take the verdict out of the hands of juries constitutes an unnecessary loss of liberty. Now, here we have Bob Inglis, pandering to the uninformed about the need for tort reform. Quoted below is the text of his attack email directed at against his primary opponent, Trey Gowdy.

In South Carolina, attorneys are prohibited from filing medical malpractice lawsuits unless they first file a Notice, with attached affidavits from other medical doctors confirming the lawsuit is viable. Before litigating, the parties must participate in mandatory, pre-suit, mediation.

After that, you get to go to court and hopefully present your case to an Upstate jury. Our juries love doctors and hate lawyers. We have no right to conduct "voir dire" to find out if some of our potential jurors are biased, such as is the case when certain members of the jury panel abhor lawyers because they have been brainwashed by false emails and statements by, frankly, lying politicians like Bob Inglis.

May 24, 2010 – Voters should ask Trey Gowdy whether he will vote with the GOP on tort reform, U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis said Monday, because he never answered the question in a meeting before the Greenville County Medical Society.

“Trey Gowdy either has no position or his trial lawyer buddies have bought his silence and he is just doing that old-style political game of avoiding accountability,” Inglis said. “Voters need to ask him, because he isn’t telling doctors who need to know.”

Inglis gathered with physicians outside the Greenville County Medical Society offices, which hosted the bipartisan forum Tuesday, May 18. Inglis said his answer is clear and doctors and physicians don’t have to wait for days to get it clear.
“I have voted for caps on damages for malpractice reform and will do so again, and I also have my own proposal developed with Spartanburg Regional Medical Center officials,” Inglis said. “What’s Trey’s answer?”

Inglis voted with 216 Republicans (and 14 Democrats) to pass H. R. 5 (109th): Help Efficient, Accessible, Low-cost, Timely Healthcare (HEALTH) Act of 2005. The measure never cleared the Senate.

Is Trey one of the holdups to meaningful reform? Is he going to be one of the nine Republicans who voted no on malpractice reform?” Inglis asked. “Who can make any sense of his answer?”

Gowdy demonstrated his professional old-style politics when he tried to baffle a room of doctors and dentists with a straightforward question on whether he would favor extending state law to cap malpractice damage awards for private physicians.
“Gowdy didn’t answer because he can’t answer,” Inglis said. “He cannot go back and tell his trial lawyer buddies he supported caps on malpractice damages.”
Gowdy has raised $75,000 — 19% of all his cash — from trial lawyers — the far largest single source of his money (click here).

Inglis said Gowdy is either unqualified, having not considered the one issue that has been the first step for GOP health care reform or he is just plain hiding from the voters that trial lawyers have bought his vote.

Voters need to ask: Trey are you with the GOP?

From the Greenville County Medical Society Candidate Forum (Tuesday, May 18)

Question: Do you favor extending state law to cap malpractice damage awards for private physicians?

Transcribed answer:

Trey Gowdy:
“Some physicians think we need medical malpractice reform, litigation reform, whether that’s in the form of a screening panel…my preferred idea which is on every verdict form, with the claim and counterclaim, give the jury right because the 7th amendment is part of the Constitution too so we have to honor the 7th amendment, which gives the jury the right to make decision and to check the box if that claim or counterclaim was frivolous. And if so, have the non-prevailing party reimburse the prevailing party.

“With respect to caps, with punitive damages, I don’t think you’d have a constitutional issue at all. With respect to pain and suffering, I think Georgia experimented with it and think they just repealed it. I don’t think you’d have a constitutional issue with respect to pain or suffering or loss of consortium.

“With respect to actual damages, you may run into a 7th amendment problem just to be frank with you. I don’t know that you’d have the ability to limit actual damages. Punitive damages yes or eliminate them frankly, you could do that statutorily I don’t think you have a constitutional right to punitive damages.

“Pain and suffering yes. Loss of consortium yes. Actual damages I think I’d be misleading you if I held out any hope that you could cap actual damages for physicians who don’t work for ( .. unintelligible..).”