Miami Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Presidents get to address our children? Nothing new in Obama's speech that hasn't been said before

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 15:53:04 GMT

Bush's Presidental Address and Remarks to Students and Faculty at Alice Deal Junior High School October 1, 2001

Thank you, Ms. Mostoller, and thanks for allowing me to visit your classroom to talk to you and all these students, and millions more in classrooms all across the country.

You know, long before I became President I was a parent. I remember the times that my kids came up with a really tough question or a difficult decision. I tried my best never to shut them down with a quick ``no.'' I would simply say those three magic words that made that problem disappear: ``Ask your Mother.'' [Laughter]

Let me tell you why I've made the trip up from the White House to Alice Deal Junior High. I'm not here to teach a lesson. You already have a very good teacher. I'm not here to tell you what to do or what to think. Maybe you're accustomed to adults talking about you and at you; well, today, I'm here to talk to you and challenge you. Education matters, and what you do today, and what you don't do can change your future.

Every day, we hear more bad news about our schools. Maybe you saw today's headline, I don't know if you had a chance to look at it, about the release of the new National Goals Report. Get the camera to come in and take a look at this for a moment. In math, for instance, this national report card shows that, nationwide, five of six eighth graders don't know the math they need to move up to the ninth grade.

In spite of troubling statistics like this one, I don't see this report, however, as just bad news, and I'll tell you why. This report tells us a lot about what you know and what you don't know. It gives us something to build on. It shows us our strengths and the weaknesses that we've go to correct. It sets forth a challenge to all of us: Work harder, learn more, revolutionize American education.

I know you've heard about stanines and percentiles, surveys and statistics, but here's what all that fancy talk really means: Education means the difference between a good future and a lousy one. Reports don't give us the right to make excuses. Our scores will tell us where we are and where we need to go.

I mentioned earlier the bad news we hear about schools today. But what we don't hear enough about are the success stories. You know, all over America, thousands of schools do succeed, even against tough odds, even against all odds. Kids from all over the District of Columbia petition to get into Alice Deal School here because parents know this school works. It works because of teachers like the one standing over here, Ms. Mostoller, who decided at the age of 25 -- maybe you all know this, but a lot of people around the country don't -- she decided at the age of 25 that she wanted to teach. She was standing in a supermarket checkout line when she saw a magazine ad about college. She went back to school, worked her way through in 7 years, waiting tables to pay tuition. She made it, and so can you.

This school here works because of students like the ones with me today, students like Rachel Rusch -- where's Rachel? Right there, okay -- a member of Alice Deal's award-winning ``Math Counts'' team. Rachel, you tell me if I'm wrong, but you and six other students in this class alone have taken part in the Johns Hopkins Talent Search. They took the college entrance exams on an experimental basis last year as seventh graders. Even in junior high, some of them scored well enough to get into college right now. So, let's just put it on the line. You've got the brains. Now, put them to work -- certainly, not for me, but for you.

Progress starts when we ask more of ourselves, our schools and, yes, you, our students. We made a start nationally now by setting six National Education Goals to meet the challenges of the 21st century. By the year 2000, at least 9 in every 10 students should graduate from high school. We should be first in the world in math and science. We need to regularly test student's abilities. Every American child should start school ready to learn; every American adult should be literate; and every American school should be safe and drug-free. Reaching those goals is the aim of a strategy that we call America 2000, a crusade for excellence in American education, school by school, community by community.

But what does all this mean, you might say, what is he doing, what does this all mean for the students right here in this room? Fast-forward -- 5 years from now. Unless things change, between now and 1996 as many as one in four of today's eighth graders will not graduate with their class. In some cities, the dropout rate is twice that high or higher. Imagine: Out of a total of nearly 3 million of your fellow classmates nationwide, an army of more than half a million dropouts.

I ask every student watching today: Look around you. Count four students. Start with yourself. No one dreams of becoming a dropout, but far too many do. Which one of you won't make it through school?

The fact is, every one of you can. Let's make a pact then right here. Let's work to see that 5 years from now, you and your friends will be more than sad statistics. Give yourself a decent shot at your dreams. Stay in school. Get that diploma.

Let's go back to the future. In the fall of 1996, 5 years from now, nearly half of today's eighth graders who get their diplomas will enter the working world. More than half the graduates will stay in school and become the college class of the year 2000.

The question each student watching today should ask is: Where will I be, where will I be 5 years from now? Will I be holding down a good job and maybe working toward a better one, or will I be out of school and out of work? Will I be on a college campus, or out running the streets?

Think about that tonight when you're at a kitchen table doing some homework; while your parents are meeting your teachers like so many millions do this year at back-to-school nights all across our great country.

I'm asking you to put two and two together: Make the connection between the homework you do tonight, the test you take tomorrow, and where you'll be 5, 15, even 50 years from now. You see, the real world doesn't begin somewhere else, some time way down there in the distant future. The real world starts right here. What you do here will have consequences for your whole lives.

Let me tell you something, many of you may find very hard to believe this. You're in control. You're thinking: How can the President say that about kids like us when we don't even have our driver's license? But think about it, and you'll see what I mean.

Think about drugs. You see films. You hear police experts and tough speakers from the outside. You get stern lectures from everyone: movie stars, athletes, teachers, parents, friends. But you know and I know that all the drug prevention programs, all the pledges, all the preaching in the world won't pull you through that critical moment when someone offers drugs. At that moment, everything comes down to you. Yes or no, you've got to choose, and the answer will change your life. Your parents won't make the decision. Your teachers won't make the decision. Your friends won't make the decision. It's up to you. It takes guts to take control.

A sound body and a sound mind, they go together, as my friend, and he is a friend, Arnold Schwarzenegger says. He's crossing the Nation talking with students about the importance of fitness. And real fitness means no drugs.

Studies show a decline in drug use, and that's good, that's encouraging, I think. And every student who draws the line against drugs really deserves credit for that. But drugs and violence continue to threaten every school, every small town and suburb in America. And as students, you have a right to be physically safe at school. You should never have to worry that a quarrel in the hallway will lead to gunfire in the playground. Fear should never follow you into the classroom.

If you have to take the long way home after school so you don't cross paths with the gang hanging on the corner, if outsiders roam the halls of your school hassling kids, hassling students, you must take control. Go to your teacher, or go to your principal, or go to your parents, as difficult as it may be, go to the school board if you have to. Demand discipline. If good people chicken out, bad people take control. Together, we can -- I really believe this -- we can drive the drugs and guns and senseless violence out of our schools.

When it comes to your own education, what I'm saying is take control. Don't say school is boring and blame it on your teachers. Make your teachers work hard. Tell them you want a first-class education. Tell them that you're here to learn.

Block out the kids who think it's not cool to be smart. I can't understand for the life of me what's so great about being stupid. If someone goofs off today, are they cool? Are they still cool years from now when they're stuck in a dead-end job? Don't let peer pressure stand between you and your dreams.

Take control -- challenge yourself. Only you know how hard you work. Maybe you can fake, maybe, just maybe you can fake your way into a job, but you won't keep it for long if you don't have the know-how to get the job done. Maybe you can cram the week before that marking period ends, and turn that C into a B. But you can't con your way past the SAT and into college. If you don't work hard, who gets hurt? If you cheat, who pays the price? If you cut corners, if you hunt for the easy A, who comes up short? Easy answer to that one: You do.

You're in control, but you are not alone. People want you to succeed. They want to help you succeed. Here at Deal, teachers like your outstanding teacher standing here with us today, Ms. Mostoller, from your principal, Mr. Moss, to your custodian, Mr. Francis. Right now in classrooms across this country, in the communities you call home, when things get tough, when answers are hard to come by, there's a teacher, a parent, a friend or family member ready to help you. They want to see you make it.

If you take school seriously, you won't have to settle for a job, just any job. You'll have a career. If you make it your business to learn, one day you'll be a better parent. You may not think about it now, but one day your children will want to look up at you and say, ``I've got the smartest Mom and Dad in the world.'' Don't disappoint them.

Let me leave you with a simple message: Every time you walk through that classroom door, make it your mission to get a good education. Don't do it just because your parents, or even the President, tells you. Do it for yourselves. Do it for your future. And while you're at it, help a little brother or sister to learn, or maybe even Mom or Dad. Let me know how you're doing. Write me a letter -- and I'm serious about this one -- write me a letter about ways you can help us achieve our goals. I think you know the address.

Now we're going to walk over to the school auditorium to say hello to the rest of the student body. To all the students across the country who watched us here in this great classroom today, may I simply say thank you and good luck to you this school year.

And now, Ms. Mostoller, if you'll kindly lead the way. Thank you all very much. Nice to be with you.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

When a fit parent's judgment isn't good enough

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 23:48:40 GMT

Christopher Jones hit the ground at Thunder Cross Motor Sports Park
near Okeechobee just before his all-terrain vehicle landed on top of
him. The 14-year-old died moments later from his injuries.

Six years later, the incident has turned into much more than a family
tragedy. The Florida Supreme Court ruled in December that
Christopher’s father, Bobby, didn’t have the right to sign a release
and waiver of liability to allow his son to operate the ATV that day.

The court ruled in deciding the case of Kirton v. Fields that “a
parent does not have the authority to execute a pre-injury release on
behalf of a minor child when the release involves participation in a
commercial activity.” A main point in the ruling was that by signing
the release the sports park was absolved of responsibility.

Parents act on behalf of their children in nearly every way possible
deciding what food to feed them, what kind of education they receive
and often their religious values. Now a precedent has been set in
Florida that a parent doesn’t have the right to sign a waiver to allow
their child to participate in commercial activities such as shooting
sports, rodeos, farm tours and all other activities where minor
releases are required for participation.

This year, however, Rep. Mike Horner introduced House Bill 363
designed to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision in Kirton v. Fields.
Though the legislation died on the Unfinished Business Calendar on May
2, it brings up a few key issues, including that of liability. And if
parents can no longer sign off a waiver, how much will it jeopardize
their children’s ability to participate in certain activities. Will
businesses simply close their operations to minors? They’re
interesting question to pose.

In its ruling, the court made the point that “It cannot be presumed
that a parent who has decided to voluntarily risk a minor child’s
physical wellbeing is acting in the child’s best interest.”
It continued: “Therefore, when a parent decides to execute a
pre-injury release on behalf of a minor child, the parent is not
protecting the welfare of the child, but is instead protecting the
interests of the activity provider.”
(http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/decisions/2008/sc07-1739.pdf)

But according to a House of Representatives staff analysis, the
Supreme Court’s rationale “focuses exclusively on risks associated
with engaging in such activities, and does not acknowledge any
parental or legislative role in weighing the risks of engaging in an
activity against the possible greater benefits to the child for
engaging in such activities notwithstanding the estimated level of
risk.” (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Documents/loaddoc.aspx?FileName=h0363b.CJCP.doc&DocumentType=Analysis&BillNumber=0363&Session=2009)

The analysis correctly argues that the Supreme Court’s decision was
made without a constitutional or statutory source of authority, and
that the ruling thus was very subjective.

So what are the limits of a fit parent's judgment? The debate likely
won’t end with the recent decision. According to Rep. Horner’s bill
and a dissenting opinion in the Kirton case by Justice Charles Wells,
there is support for the Legislature to end up the final voice in the
matter. At least that way, the state’s current and future parents can
have a say in their role as guardians of their children.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

A layman's explanation of comparative fault and or contributory negligence and how it affects your recovery.

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 11:00:00 GMT

Many of us will at some point in our lives be involved in a personal injury lawsuit. It may be because we’ve been involved in some way in a car accident. Or, we could be on a jury listening to someone else’s story. In any event, a bit of knowledge about the way the system works is never a bad thing to have. So, a little bit about comparative and contributory negligence and the various ways it may be legally defined. This is a comment on the broad outlines of negligence. Specific details may vary widely from state to state and it is always a good idea to consult a skilled personal injury attorney familiar with your jurisdiction.

Traditionally, under the common law, if the plaintiff were responsible for any of his or her damages there could be no recovery. This legal concept is known as contributory negligence (CN). If for instance, a pedestrian failed to look both ways before crossing the street and were struck by a clearly negligent driver, the pedestrian was traditionally barred from recovering any damages from the driver. This system has grown increasingly unpopular, being seen as fundamentally unfair, with only four states and the District of Columbia still using it in a pure form.

Thirteen states use what is called the “pure comparative fault rule” (PCF). This means roughly that a plaintiff can recover, even if 99% at fault, but that any recovery will be reduced by damages he plaintiff was responsible for. If a jury finds that Dan is 40% at fault, and Melinda is 60% at fault, Dan could still recover, but his $10,000 damage award will be reduced by 40%, for a net recovery of $6000.

The remaining states fall use the “modified comparative fault” (MCF) system, which strikes a balance between the pure comparative fault and contributory negligence standards. In these states any judgment will be reduced by the plaintiff’s degree of negligence, just as in a PCF system. However, if the plaintiff’s negligence exceeds a certain threshold, all recovery is barred. That threshold is normally either fifty or fifty-one percent, depending on the state.

Florida uses a pure comparative fault rule. Because the common law generally controls unless superseded by statute, the Florida legislature has enacted a statute expressly allowing recovery by a plaintiff even if he or she bears some measure of responsibility for an injury. A problem that can spring up in states like this is the jury attempting to take matters into their own hands.

In theory the jury should award the same amount of damages regardless the percentages of assigned responsibility. Then someone, often the judge, will reduce any award. Often however, in cases where the plaintiff bear a large amount of responsibility for the injuries, juries will be biased against the plaintiff, essentially preemptively reducing any award before the judge has a chance to. This is a twisting of Florida law, and it is something that a lawyer should be watchful of.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Florida is still Gerrymandering- what does that mean to Florida's future? And isn't gerrymandering illegal?

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 17:25:27 GMT

Would it seem fair that election districts are not impartially drawn? Would it seem fair if some districts actually have some houses on a particular street, while other houses owned by people within another political party, are grouped into a different district? It's called "gerrymandering" and it means "apportionment of electoral districts in such a way as to give the political party in power an advantage in electing its representatives."

Gerrymandering is described as boundary delimitation- emphasis on the "de". It is adjustment by incumbents in order to achieve the ideal voter base for one’s platform. Adjustments have been proven to be made, based on a variety of factors including socio-economic status, race and land values, just to name a few. But the term "adjustments" is used to stack the deck to ensure a particular party, or in some instances a particular candidate, wins.

The two aims of gerrymandering are to maximize the effect of supporters’ votes and to minimize the effect of opponents' votes. One strategy, packing, is to concentrate as many voters of one type into a single electoral district to reduce their influence in other districts.

In Florida the gerrymander practice still runs rampant. It's no surprise that the Legislators that sit in office are charged with the redistricting, despite that it often means they are making decisions about districts where they stand for re-election. Does this seem equitable?

Elbridge Gerry is credited as the inventor of gerrymandering technique involving the bang-up job done with Massachusetts’ districts that were carved out to look like a dragon. Political redistricting has historically followed the U.S. Census- usually once every 10 years. Once, at the beginning of every decade each state government adjusts its voting districts to be "consistent" with increased or decreased population. That's the charge- nothing more. At least that’s how it’s supposed to be done. To eliminate or exclude a race or minority group would be prejudicial, but so is it to pack all voters of one party into a fraction of the districts. That's the way we do it in Florida these days, which is why although 46% of the voters are in one party, Democrats, only 1/3 of state and Congressional elected officials are from Florida's majority party. Fair voting districts can be drawn, like in Iowa, where the lines are very symmetrical and don't favor one party over another, giving the voters a chance to actually weigh in on who represents them.

More recently, redistricting happens at the whim of the majority party. Florida is just about as good of an example as any, having only three incumbent state legislators voted out of office since 2004. That’s out of 120 House members and 40 senators according to Ellen Freidin, campaign manager at Fair Districts Florida. Fair Districts Florida is a non-partisan committee looking to end political gerrymandering. She added that gerrymandering stifles competition for an area and that the problems go largely unnoticed once district lines are drawn. "Districts are designated and planned to be won by a party or an individual, so there usually aren't any meaningful challenges," she said.

In Florida, the act of redistricting has gotten out of control. By clicking on a random district found at the Florida elections website reveals the utter chaos involved in drawing up a voting district. An outsider to the greater St. Petersburg area would assume that one district would encompass this large but certainly not massive peninsula. They would be wrong. This particular gem stretches across the Bay and vertically for miles while laterally being no more than a few miles. State Senate District 27 starts in Palm Beach extends past the Everglades and into the far west counties of Naples Florida- a world apart.

This problem affects the federal level where U.S. Representatives’ district lines have completely gone awry. Rep. Robert Wexler’s district encompasses an hour and a half drive in one direction from West Palm Beach to Pompano Beach, completely different areas, I can assure you. Some elected officials aren't connected to their own counties, let alone counties adjacent to counties adjacent to the next counties. As an example, former House Rep. Lorrane Ausley who now running in the state senate seat, will have to meet constituents in ELEVEN counties considered in her "district". She will likely make the effort, but can the same be said of most?

Fair Districts Florida (www.fairdistrictsflorida.org) identifies the last three presidential elections and split senators as indicators of Florida’s political affiliation. One would assume that it is a divided state, but looking at the state legislature numbers, Republicans have been the majority party nearly 2-1 since 2002, not even close.

Competition is one of the main factors to a healthy democracy and even more important is the will of the people. In these redistricting scenarios, legislators choose their voters which is the opposite of how it’s suppose to be. Even worse is the controlling majority redistricting on such broad scales as the entire state. The future of Florida elections would fall nothing short of the recent Iranian elections if the voters are not measured by their support but rather their domicile in this hijacked version of democracy.

Fortunately, the rest of the United States is interested in reforming the gerrymandering practices of "back-door politics". Reform efforts are on both sides of the aisle, with both Sen. John McCain and President Barack Obama supporting such change. At home, Florida has drawn bi-partisan support for the idea and every newspaper in all of Florida has written editorials in favor of the change. So what's the hold up? Well, those people in office who don't like the idea of running a fair race, and like the stacking in their favor.

The mission statement of Fair Districts Florida is simple : Legislative/Congressional districts or districting plans may not be drawn to favor or disfavor an incumbent or political party. Districts shall not be drawn to deny racial or language minorities the equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice. Districts must be contiguous. Unless otherwise required, districts must be compact, as equal in population as feasible, and where feasible must make use of existing city, county and geographical boundaries.

Let's see who opposes that.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

WOULD YOU HIRE A FEMALE TRIAL ATTORNEY? The good, the bad, and the "ugly"

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Tue, 14 Jul 2009 16:49:49 GMT

Justice is Not Blind to Beauty

Perhaps it is survival of the fittest, but it seems that even in today’s legal system looks matter. Good looks turn heads, win hearts, and according to many studies, persuade jurors. While most jurors may plead their impartiality it’s obvious they give more weight to the arguments and statements made by attractive attorneys and witnesses. Even babies are attracted to better looking faces. What makes us think that we have differentiated so much from our primal beginnings? The New York Times reports on how "less attractive" people are routinely discriminated against. While America frowns upon discrimination based upon race, sex, and gender, a gap remains unearthed when it comes down to "attractive" versus “unattractive". Looking at attractive and unattractive attorneys from their first to their fifth year after graduation, the study showed that "unattractive" lawyers within the private sector usually switched to government jobs while attractive government lawyers went on to join private firms.

Even though most of society believes good-looking females have it is easy, the truth is that most people expect more out of these women. In fact, social science has found that male attorneys typically fare better than their counterpart female attorneys. Maybe it’s because males are associated with being aggressive and this imparts a seemingly more passionate argument on behalf of their clients. In one such study, male attorneys were rated higher.

Also, when jurors themselves feel less than confident about their appearance, they typically find resistance in accepting the good-looking lawyer’s argument. In Scientific American's recent article: In the art of persuasion, does a person’s sex or body type make a difference? the research suggested that "all else being equal, a skinny man would usually believe another skinny man over a heavier man. Things are seldom equal, however; in our society, skinny people are considered to be more attractive, and attractive people are more persuasive." The same article suggests that according to scientific research, about most topics, men are superior to females in the courtroom because juries give them more credibility. They consider them experts slightly more easily than women trial attorneys are evaluated. For me, this is one of those "things that make you go, hmmmmmm" moments.

An article published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found that women chess players did not do as well when they knew they were playing against male players. Can the same be suggested of women trial attorneys? I can tell you my own personal experience is I've felt I had an advantage, but scientifically, these studies suggest something different.

If the studies are to be believed, as in, they can be proved scientifically, isn't this a bias that should be addressed in order to properly strike potential jurors? How does “lookism” differ from any other type of federally protected discrimination? Our most recent national election highlights beauty at its best. Sarah Palin herself was criticized for being "too hot for politics". Running for Vice President, while a much more inflated platform and position, not even she could overcome media commentaries and late night shows that constantly ridiculed her because of her good looks. Sometimes looks work to an individual’s advantage and sometimes, at least in Sarah Palin’s case, they be one's demise. In fairness, I should say "part" of Palin's demise.

As trial lawyers we always recognized nature’s impact upon a juror’s perspective also impacts their perception of the accused and witnesses who testify. Good looks are a bonus when it comes to credibility and likability. Jurors always take glances at the accused, their demeanor, dress, etc. It is why attorneys tell their clients to dress appropriately….it’s because they know the importance that this plays in how the jurors rule. Women not only battle equality issues with men everyday but they also battle equality issues among there own gender. It just goes to show that even the emblem of justice, the iconic blindfolded woman who holds the scales of justice has a tendency to take a peak and make certain judgments after she's looked.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Florida's Court Appointments and the current JNC process- does it need revamping?

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 13:35:55 GMT

It’s not often that Republicans “go to bat” for the cause of diversity. It’s quite possible that, that may be the reason for Gov. Crist’s recent defeat at the Florida Supreme Court.

In an action by former Judge Pleus, Gov. Crist was extremely and constitutionally, late in appointing a replacement judge for Florida’s 5th District Court of Appeals (He has yet to do so after 6 months). Crist's reason? Diversity. Under Article V of the Florida Constitution Gov. Crist had a maximum of 60 days to approve and appoint a nominee from the Judicial Nominating Commission. The initial list was rejected by Crist, citing lack of diversity as the reason for the denial. The commission then refused to issue another list and the political stalemate stood.

In its recent decision the Florida Supreme Court acknowledged and commended Crist’s noble efforts but added that the rules of the Florida Constitution are clear. The governor was seeking to circumvent the commission which is predominantly comprised of members he appointed. By doing so, under the guise of diversity, it may seem suspect to some. Regardless, the constitutional timetable was violated and Crist now has to act.

So why all the hype if this is a mere error in procedure? Well it’s a strange error considering Crist’s predecessor former Gov. Jeb Bush made it easy as possible to appoint judges. Under the Florida Constitution:

Each judicial nominating commission shall be composed of the following:

a. Three members appointed by the Board of Governors of The Florida Bar from among The Florida Bar members who are actively engaged in the practice of law with offices within the territorial jurisdiction of the affected court, district or circuit;

b. Three electors who reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the court or circuit appointed by the governor; and

c. Three electors who reside in the territorial jurisdiction of the court or circuit and who are not members of the bar of Florida, selected and appointed by a majority vote of the other six members of the commission.

But as the Justice Journal System reported, in 2001 then-Governor Bush and the Republican controlled legislature put into effect law that changed what the State Constitution controlled...

Under the modified merit selection system that was adopted, the governor has nearly total control in shaping the entire membership of the JNCs. The governor now has the authority to appoint four members of the Florida Bar to each JNC from a list of names submitted to him by the Board of Governors of the Florida Bar but may also reject those nominees and request that the Board resubmit another list. The governor appoints the other five members of each JNC and at least two of those appointees must be lawyers. The result is that Florida's judicial selection process has shifted away from the collaborative bar-governor process, which has been the hallmark of merit selection, to a system closer to a gubernatorial appointment process.

So what we have is an attempt to push the envelope further. Crist would like to be able to just outright bypass the JNC’s. But the issue of judicial diversity doesn’t just end at the “bold” Governor denying a list (he in part created) in the name of women and racial minorities’ rights.

Pleus’ attorney, Talbot "Sandy" D'Alemberte is the former President of Florida State University. His position is that the goal of diversity on the bench, start with the JNCdoesn't't’s, whichJNC doesn't are for the most part controlled by the Governor himself. In theory, a more representative commission will produce a more representative judiciary. With only a year left, Gov. Crist will hopefully take the advice of Mr. D’Alemberte and build from the ground-up.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Florida Governor vetoes Legislative Bill that gave State Farm clearance to charge higher fees than all other regulated insurance companies

Gabrielle D'Alemberte — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 18:02:07 GMT

In 1348 Europe was devastated by the Black Plague (now thought to have been bubonic plague, or Yersinia pestis). It killed somewhere between thirty and sixty percent of the population of Europe. One of the many effects of that demographic tragedy was an enormous reduction in the number of working age men. As we might expect, those workers who remained were much in demand, and expected higher wages as a result. While this would have been delightful for the workers and their families, it would also have meant higher costs for employers.

The response to this, from the nobility of England, was the Ordinance of Labourers of 1349. It essentially attempted to cap the wages of working men at what they had been prior to the plague. Let’s cut to the chase and simply note that this attempt was an abject failure, with both workers and employers ignoring it. When this proved ineffective, the English parliament responded with the Statute of Labourers, enacted in 1351. Presumably the nobility felt that the peasantry would respond better to a differently named law. They did not.

So why would anyone begin a blog post ostensibly about legislative attempts to alter insurance pricing in Florida with some dry-as-dust account of strange legal things that happened in England almost seven hundred years ago? Because it illustrates beautifully two points that I’d like to make. First, the folks with the powers to make laws make laws that benefit themselves. Second, more important than anything else, that laws have consequences, regardless of the intent of the legislators.

Typically, when prices are viewed as unfair we attempt to control them by enacting laws that keep prices low or high. Anti-gouging statutes are an example of the former, farm price supports and minimum wage laws are examples of the latter. In Florida for example, it can be extremely expensive to obtain homeowners insurance. Its the primary complaint I hear from friends who are struggling to support their home expenses within their current salaries.

The required homeowners insurance, windstorm insurance and often flood insurance, has been unpopular with homeowners in Florida and in some instances, caused wage earners to be left out of the satisfying experience of homeownership. In response to the unhappiness of their constituents, the Florida legislature has passed laws controlling the prices insurance companies are allowed to charge in Florida. It is called a State protection- and its necessary to protect Florida's families, who are typically less sophisticated than a huge insurance giant, and frankly, it is an obligation of each state. These regulations, these protections, are fantastic; the will of the people has triumphed. So why are Floridians not playing pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey and wearing lampshades on their heads?

Because over the last several months, one particular insurance firm, State Farm, has been lobbying hard to be allowed to raise its rates and to not have any responsibility about price fixing or reporting. State Farms claims that its Florida rates simply aren’t high enough to continue operations in Florida.

According to it's own website, "State Farm Bank is a nontraditional financial institution and does not have branch offices. The bulk of direct customer interaction and product assistance is provided by State Farm® agents, augmented by a telephone call center, mail and the Internet. As of December 31, 2005, the Bank held $12 billion in total assets."

Earlier this year the Florida legislature agreed, and passed a law allowing State Farm to increase its prices by almost fifty percent. On June 24 of this year however, Florida governor Charlie Crist vetoed that law. State Farm is now threatening to stop offering any property insurance in the state of Florida. Can this be described as retaliatory? Absolutely. So who is wearing the pants in Florida? The Government, elected officials as the protector of it's constituents, or insurance companies? WHO HAS THE POWER and WHY DO Florida Legislators excuse, even vote for insurance companies to gouge the people who put those same Legislators in business? It wasn't always like this. There was a day in Florida, during the 1970s and 1980s when the Florida Legislator acted with far more responsibility to its citizens.

Presumably there is some price point below which an insurance company cannot go if it wishes to remain in business. Is State Farm currently at that price point? I’m not qualified to have an opinion on that matter. Probably the legislature has a regulatory board staffed with experts in the business of insurance. A question then, is where does one go to find experts in a particular business because the general public, friends like mine, all have the same opinion, the rates are already prohibiting hard working people from owning homes.

Traditionally one of the main answers has been, rates get set by the regulated industry itself. This is convenient for industry, as it allows them to essentially choose the staff of the agencies which are supposed to limit it. It is also extremely convenient for legislators, as saves them from having to learn any bothersome details, it is far easier to determine the preference of a small group of lobbyists than the desire of the whole electorate, and industry can generally be relied on to pony up massive sums of cash come reelection time.

Most voters in Florida have more pressing things to do than monitor every thing their legislature does. This is in fact, the very point of representative democracy. Industry however, doesn’t need to monitor everything, only those matters which directly affect their bottom line. Moreover, industry has enough resources that they can dedicate money and manpower directly to monitoring just the small number of issues they care about. Insurance pricing is a matter of secondary concern to the voters, but of primary interest to insurance companies. Further, the benefits of any change in pricing are very small for any individual voter, but in the aggregate they are enormous for insurance companies.

In economist’s jargon this is a situation where the costs are diffused but the benefits are concentrated. When this occurs, companies have every incentive to take over the very agencies in charge of regulating them. This dilemma is known as regulatory capture, and has been a serious problem at least since the 1880s, when the Interstate Commerce Commission was created to regulate railroad rates.

There are really only two possible explanations for State Farm’s actions in Florida. First, if State Farm is to be believed in their claim, then they are lying to potential investors and the world by posting contradictory information on their own website. If State Farm really cannot make enough money under the old pricing structure to continue doing business in Florida, then hey, they can't. I suppose like when I can't afford a pair of shoes I really want, it just means I don't get them. If they can't afford it, they don't don't it, right?. Or, maybe State Farm is simply running a bluff in order to better their bottom line. And the Florida Legislators that voted "yes" on the Bill that proposed to allow State Farm's prices to go unregulated are getting some hell of a bonus, whether directly or in soft money, but be certain they are getting something in exchange for selling out the people that they count on to vote them into office.

Which is the correct explanation? It’s difficult to say, but to his credit, and certainly against much political pressure from his own party, Governor Crist vetoed the State Farm bill and vetoed their unregulated price increases. Now, it's time to remember who has the power after all and let's think about asking State Farm to leave Florida all together finally sending a message to insurance companies that while they are entitled to succeed and profit in our state, they cannot do it by gouging the citizens. Now the questions is what message to send those legislators that actually voted "yes" and passed this bill. What message do we send them?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Gabrielle D'Alemberte

Mandatory Cystic Fibrosis Testing for Florida Newborns

Alison Young — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 14:02:29 GMT

On September 17, 2007 the State of Florida began newborn screening for Cystic Fibrosis. CF affects approximately 30,000 Americans and people diagnosed with the disease live, on average, to 37. While great strides have been made in the treatment and diagnosis of CF, there is still no known cure.

By screening newborns for elevated IRT levels (Immunoreactive Trypsinogen), it is hoped that early diagnosis will allow for aggressive treatment in the first years of life which will ultimately lead to greater life expectancy as the child matures. Newborns with elevated IRT levels will then be screened for 43 DNA mutations commonly known to be associated with CF. If two of these mutations are detected, the child is presumed to have cystic fibrosis. If only one is detected, the child still may have CF, but will need a specialized sweat test to confirm or rule out a diagnosis. The sweat test measures the levels of sodium and chloride in the infant's sweat, a key marker in patients with cystic fibrosis.

While the tests are for the most part painless, the emotional toll taken on otherwise unsuspecting parents can be enormous. The national Cystic Fibrosis Foundation provides support resources as well as a large database of information for parents and patients alike to arm themselves with the latest information on CF detection, diagnosis and treatment.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alison Young

Credit Card Numbers Stolen From Sweetbay

Shannon Weidemann — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:40:22 GMT

The Sweetbay Supermarket, a Florida chain of grocery stores, and Hannaford Bros. announced last week that 4.2 Million credit card and debit card numbers were obtained during store transactions. Over 1800 cases of credit card fraud have been reported. The credit & debit card numbers were illegally obtained during the card authorization process.

Hannaford was notified of unusual credit card activity by its data processing company on Feb. 27 and immediately began working with law enforcement on an investigation, said Michael Norton, a company spokesman.
Since the investigation is ongoing and no arrests have been made, Norton was reluctant to explain how the numbers had been obtained.
But he was confident that a similar breach would not happen again.

It is unknown how the security breach occured. The fraud is being investigated by the U.S. Secret Service. Two class action lawsuits have been filed on behalf of the customers involved. Shoppers are urged to check with their credit card companies and banks to see if their numbers were taken. No personal information was obtained during the security breach.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Shannon Weidemann

Chief Justice Calls Potential Budget Cuts "Murder"

Seth Miles — Thu, 20 Mar 2008 11:31:31 GMT

Due to fiscal shortfalls, caused in large part by a sinking economy, Florida officials proposed a 10% cut to the Court's budget. Chief Justice Fred Lewis warned Florida's legislators that the cuts would lead to the firing of 900 court employees and be nothing less than a "spear to the heart."

The sad reality? The budget cuts are necessitated by a bad short-term federal fiscal policy more interested in tax cuts for the wealthy, outrageous expenditures on an unnecessary war, and sweetheart deals for political cronies, than the fiscal future of this country. And those hurt, once again, will be the poor, the young, and the disenfranchised. Overburdened courts will be further overburdened and delays will result. And, as we all know, particularly for the injured, justice delayed is justice denied.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Seth Miles