Decision on Montana case affirms 'Citizens United' A lower court had upheld a ban on businesses' political spending. Justices overruled that, 5-4. By Robert Barnes Washington Post

A narrowly divided Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its landmark 2010 decision allowing corporations to spend unlimited money on elections, deciding 5 to 4 that a state court was wrong to uphold Montana's century-old ban on political spending by businesses.

The court decision - two paragraphs issued without hearings or debate - further inflamed a national argument over the role of big money in politics, which has become a central feature of the expensive race for the White House between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

A constellation of independent groups is poised to spend $1 billion or more on the 2012 elections, much of it raised in secret from billionaires and corporations. The spending is made possible in part by the court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which found that companies and unions have a free-speech right to donate unlimited amounts for and against candidates.

This atmosphere of fevered spending had triggered hopes among critics that the court might reconsider the ruling. But Monday's decision appears to scuttle any chance of that, at least for now.

Obama spokesman Eric Schultz said the White House was "disappointed" that the court did not revisit the case.

"Citizens United mistakenly overruled long-standing cases that protected the fairness and integrity of elections," Schultz said. "Unfortunately, the court today missed an opportunity to correct that mistake."

The case involved a Montana law forbidding corporate political spending. The law dated to 1912, when the "copper kings" and other mining barons largely controlled the state's politics. Montana's high court said that, even after Citizens United, the legacy of corruption and other factors unique to Montana justified a ban on spending by corporations regulated by the state.

But the same five justices who formed the majority in Citizens United said in an unsigned opinion that Montana's arguments "either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case." The decision had the effect of overturning Montana's law.

Justice Stephen G. Breyer penned a short dissent for the four-judge minority, writing that Montana's experience "casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so."

Justice Elena Kagan - who argued the Citizens United case as Obama's solicitor general - joined Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor in the dissent. Although Breyer and Ginsburg said in February that the court should use the case to revisit Citizens United, Breyer wrote Monday that he did "not see a significant possibility of reconsideration" by the majority.

Monday's decision drew strong condemnations from activists who favor tougher limits on money in politics and fulsome praise from those opposed to such regulations.

"Citizens and the nation are not going to accept the Supreme Court-imposed campaign finance system that allows our government to be auctioned off to billionaires, millionaires, corporate funders and other special interests," said Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, a longtime activist who helped draft many of the nation's post-Watergate election laws.

James Bopp Jr., an attorney for the Montana plaintiffs and a key architect of national challenges to campaign finance laws, called the decision "excellent" and said it "shut the door" on reconsideration of Citizens United.

 Richard Hasen, a law professor at the University of California at Irvine, wrote on his election law blog that the outcome of the Montana case is actually a "relative victory for campaign-finance reformers" because the five-justice majority shows no signs of budging on Citizens United.

"Taking the case would have made things so much worse," Hasen wrote.

The five justices who made up the majority in Citizens United remain on the court and have consistently held that many legislative attempts to control the influence of money in politics run afoul of constitutional guarantees of free speech.

Besides lifting the ban on corporate and union expenditures, a lower court and the FEC have interpreted the Citizens United ruling to mean that unlimited individual contributions must be allowed, clearing the way for "super PACs," fund-raising groups closely identified with candidates but technically independent.

Citizens United: Is the Supreme Court Happy Now?

Even in a political season marked by unprecedented levels of political spending, Sheldon Adelson stands alone.

In recent days, Mr. Adelson, a billionaire casino owner, and his wife, Dr. Miriam Adelson, gave $10 million to Restore Our Future, a “super PAC” backing the Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, people with knowledge of the contribution said on Wednesday, leaving the Adelsons by far the most prolific campaign donors in the country.

All told, the Adelsons have now given at least $35 million to super PACs during the 2012 campaign, not including several hundred thousand dollars worth of $2,500 contributions directly to federal candidates. That is more than twice as much as his closest competitor for the title, the billionaire industrialist Harold C. Simmons and his wife, Annette, making Mr. Adelson a uniquely powerful force in the annals of presidential politics.

With a net worth of roughly $25 billion, Mr. Adelson could afford to give far more, and seems willing to do so: In an interview with Forbes magazine this year, he suggested he would consider spending as much as $100 million on the 2012 elections.

For more see: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/billionaire-now-showers-romney-with-money/

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Scott Walker and Citizens United

The governor put together a nationwide fundraising effort and was richly rewarded. Two-thirds of the $31 million Walker raised to fight the recall came from out-of-state donors, mostly rich guys who hate unions. The gush of cash going to Walker overwhelmed Barrett’s boots-on-the-ground effort and provided more proof, if any more were needed, that the U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling -- eliminating limits on campaign donations -- has dramatically altered the balance of power in American politics.

The Citizens United decision does not apply to big corporations alone; it also frees unions to give as much as they want. But the fact is unions do not have ready access to money on the scale of the billionaire boys club. When just one man, casino king Sheldon Adelson, can write a couple of checks and fund Newt Gingrich’s entire presidential campaign, you know the craps table of electioneering has been tilted in favor of candidates who look after the concerns of the mega-rich.  L.A. Times, June 6, 2012

In fact, three wealthy individuals from out of state contributed more than all of the money raised by Walker's opponent Barrett.  It is at the state and local level where the full force of Citizens United will be felt.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Why is Citizens United Is Bad For Public Policy

In a story run June 6,2012, National Public Radio looked at how powerful lobbyists with lots of money to spend keep the Mortgage Interest Deduction alive.  Below are a few highlights from that story.

If you have a mortgage on your home, you can deduct the interest from your taxes. It's a popular, well-entrenched policy. But according to one policy adviser to a U.S. senator, "the mortgage-interest deduction, from a purely policy perspective ... makes no sense."

It's a view that's supported by a mountain of academic research: The mortgage-interest tax deduction benefits the rich more than the poor, has little effect on home ownership and isn't even really a bargain for homeowners because it raises home prices.

So do policy advisers tell members of Congress to fight the mortgage-interest tax deduction?

"If you're relatively green in Washington, I suppose that happens. And I suppose you're laughed at," said the adviser, who preferred not to give his name for fear of losing his job. "The mortgage-interest deduction is a sacred cow."

Everyone in Washington, D.C., knows that there are many powerful forces making sure that no one ever suggests getting rid of the mortgage-interest deduction. Jimmy Williams, a former lobbyist for the National Association of Realtors, was one of those forces.

"If I were at the Realtors right now, I'd declare war" on anyone who tried to get rid of the deduction, Williams says.

He would run ads, encourage Realtors across the country to make phone calls and give money to the most powerful legislators in Washington. "And then you sit back and just say, 'You really want to go down this path? That's just not a really smart way to run for re-election.' "

Jamie Gregory, who currently lobbies for the Realtors, says if you got rid of the deduction tomorrow, home prices would fall all over the country, which would destabilize the economy. And besides, he says, the biggest lobby in favor of the deduction is homeowners.

"For middle-class Americans, either doing away or limiting the mortgage-interest deduction is going to be a tax increase," he says.

People who have bought a house assuming they'll get a break on their taxes each year want that tax break. They might not be able to afford the house they're in without it.

Of course, you could phase out the deduction out over time, making it apply only to future homebuyers. Who knows what solutions smart policy staffers in D.C. could come up with — if they weren't afraid of being laughed at for being so naive?

Copyright 2012 National Public Radio. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Citizens United Back At U.S. Supreme Court

1048

Three Montana corporations sued to bring the state into conformity with Citizens United by overturning a 100-year-old state law, passed when copper and other corporations supposedly held sway, that bans all corporate political spending. The state’s Supreme Court refused to do this, citing Montana’s supposedly unique susceptibility to corporate domination — an idea amusingly discordant with the three corporations’ failure even to persuade the state court to acknowledge the supremacy of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Source: Washington Post. georgewill@washpost.com

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Michael

Connecticut 47th of 50 States in Discipline of Doctors

Health Department defends discipline of doctors

Updated: Friday, 25 May 2012, 1:30 PM EDT
Published : Friday, 25 May 2012, 1:30 PM EDT

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A spokesman for the state Department of Public Health is defending how Connecticut punishes doctors after a study by a consumer advocacy group showed the state has one of the lowest physician discipline rates in the country.

William Gerrish  told the Journal Inquirer that last week's report by Public Citizen focused only on a narrow slice of information about serious disciplinary actions and ignored the wide variety of sanctions imposed by the state Medical Examining Board including reprimands, censures and fines.

Public Citizen said Connecticut ranked 47th out of 50 states and Washington, D.C., in taking serious actions against doctors including license suspension and revocation.

The study said Connecticut took less than two serious actions per 1,000 doctors, when the national rate was about three per 1,000.

___

Information from: Journal Inquirer

JAMA Finds a Relationship Between Patient Mortality and Nurse Staffing Levels

Hospitals with high patient to nurse ratios experience a higher mortality rate among surgical patients according to the Journal of the American Medical Society.  Below are results of a study conducted by JAMA.

After adjusting for patient and hospital characteristics (size, teaching status, and technology), each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 7% (odds ratio [OR], 1.07; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.12) increase in the likelihood of dying within 30 days of admission and a 7% (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02-1.11) increase in the odds of failure-to-rescue. After adjusting for nurse and hospital characteristics, each additional patient per nurse was associated with a 23% (OR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.13-1.34) increase in the odds of burnout and a 15% (OR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.07-1.25) increase in the odds of job dissatisfaction.

Conclusions  In hospitals with high patient-to-nurse ratios, surgical patients experience higher risk-adjusted 30-day mortality and failure-to-rescue rates, and nurses are more likely to experience burnout and job dissatisfaction.

For the complete study go to:  http://jama.jamanetwork.com

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Hospital Survey by HHS

• Did doctors treat patients with courtesy and respect?
• How often were the room and bathroom cleaned?
• Was the area around the room quiet?
• Did the patient get immediate help after pressing a Call button?
•  www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov  To review the results.

These are some of the questions that were asked in a recent survey taken from patients at random from 2,500 hospitals nationally.  

You will not be surprised to learn that many patients feel that they were poorly treated while in the hospital.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

United States v. Arizona

The Supreme Court heard argument on Arizona's controversial law that is intended to target illegal aliens.  The United States sued Arizona claiming that the US Government was the sole authority regarding immigration law and enforcement.

Apparently Chief Justice Roberts aggressively questioned the government's lawyer.  Roberts characterized the law as merely information gathering by the state.

However, because the law requires a person suspected of being illegal to prove his or her citizenship status prior to the police releasing them, a US citizen who walks their dog at night without the necessary identification could spend the night in jail.  Balancing the rights of those legally in the country with those who are not consumed much of the argument.  Justice Scalia expressed his view that we should simply deport "these people."

For more:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/opinion/arizona-v-united-states.html?_r=1

by Michael Quinn, Esq.

Unlimited Spending By Corporations and Unions - Bad For Democracy

In 2010 the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Congressional ban on unlimited spending by special interest groups was unconstitutional.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010.  


We have seen some of the effects of this in the Republican primaries where a single rich individual or corporation can effectively continue to prop up a candidate when the public has lost interest in that candidate.  It allows for vicious attack ads that no candidate has to take responsibility for and it effectively allows one candidate to spend disproportionately to other candidates.


The real danger from this decision comes in local, state and judicial elections.  In these smaller elections a candidate who angers a large corporation or union in his or her district may find a well financed attack machine that is spending out of proportion to the candidates themselves.  The effect is likely to result in the district having representatives who rubber stamp anything the corporation or union wants.  This is not good for democracy because it gives a disproportionate voice to the person, union or corporation that has the money to drown out other voices.  


You will hear discussions of this during the 2012 Presidential race.  The place to look for its real effect is at the local and state level.


by Michael Quinn, Esq,

Some Hospitals Using Collection Agencies to Register Patients

Accretive Health, a collection and management company has contracts with struggling hospitals around the country to assist with the collection of hospital bills.  In some cases the registration and billing departments of some hospitals have been turned over to collection agencies.  In an investigation in Minnesota, for example, it is claimed some patients have been required to pay prior to receiving medical services.

 Accretive reported net income of $29.2 million dollars last year up 130%.

There have been complaints by the medical  staff at hospitals where these techniques are being employed, that patients are failing to seek life saving procedures because of these collection techniques.

This raises more questions about what will happen if the new health care law is struck down.  Many of the people who are prey to these collection agencies lack health insurance.  Without a health care plan the numbers of people subjected to these strong-are tactics will only increase.   For more go the Bloomberg News.

awayne3@bloomberg.net

by Michael Quinn, Esq.

Antibiotics in Animals: The Human Impact

The FDA has proposed a rule change regarding the use of antibiotics in animal feed and water.  For 35 years the FDA has been working with farmers who raise chickens, pork and beef to limit the use of antibiotics in otherwise healthy animals.  Currently 80% of all antibiotics sold in the United States is used in animal feed and water, almost all for healthy animals.  The rule change would simply require a prescription for the use of antibiotics in animals.

The concern with the excessive use of antibiotics is the development of resistant strains of bacteria that cause disease in humans.  Each year 99,000 humans die from hospital-acquired infections.  In an earlier post I  discussed MRSA one of the most wide spread of the super-bugs.   For more information go to www.fda.gov and  fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance

by Michael Quinn, Esq.

For-Profit Hospitals

The Westerly Hospital has announced that a company out of New Jersey that turns financially troubled hospitals into for-profit hospitals is interested in purchasing Westerly Hospital.  Westerly Hospital which ended the 2011 financial year $5.7 million dollars in the red certainly meets that criteria.  The hospital is still being run as an independent hospital under receivership. For-profit hospitals generally do not have emergency rooms and will not accept medicaid, insurance for the poor.  That means L&M hospital in New London will be the only hospital in miles that will see poor patients.  Bad news for L&M, which like most city hospitals, already struggles.

Although those deciding the fate of Westerly Hospital say they hope to keep the hospital independent, the reality may be that its only viable suitor is a for-profit corporation.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Are Civil Lawsuits Good For Society?

There is almost no one who would answer yes to that question. That is, no one who has ever been injured by a defective product or through medical negligence. The decision to bring a claim is always a difficult one. Our clients always tell us how hard a decision it was to just consider bringing a claim. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that a claim is the only way to gain a degree of compensation for their loss.

Civil claims have a broader social value as well. Consider the Ford Pinto. Ford knew that there was a design defect in the placement of a bolt adjacent to the gas tank. The cost to remedy $3. It elected to produce the vehicle without the protection. Ford entered into a cost/benefit analysis of payments they would have to make from injury claims compared to the fix. In the 1972 case involving death of a 13 year old child who was killed when the family Pinto was rear ended and burst into flames. The jury took into account the company's cost benefit analysis in making its award. Awarding the entire amount Ford thought it would pay for all such claims.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 1 19 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1981).

Civil lawsuits have the potential to have companies and individuals act more responsibility at the front end, making ours a safer society and ultimately reducing the number of claims.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Local Orthopedic Surgeon Promotes Health History Credit Card

Dr. Frank Maletz, an accomplished orthopedic surgeon in New London, CT, is promoting what he calls "Healthspital." This is an idea long overdue in the US.

What it is: A patient's health history including chronic conditions, surgeries, medications and medication allergies would all be stored on a magnetic tape or card similar to your credit card. For someone like myself it would include a DNR order as well as my health care proxy.

As the population ages, the number of people taking anywhere from 4 to 10 prescriptions a day is growing exponentially. It is not unusual for a person to be unable to tell what medications he is taking much less the dosage. Add to this the problem faced with an unconscious patient in the Emergency Room and no one to call.

As Dr. Maletz notes, it is not unusual for an emergency room to conduct tests that are completely unnecessary because there is no accurate medical history. Why suspect an acute appendicitis if the patient had their appendix removed at 10.

These cards have been the standard in Europe for years. They save money and, more importantly, they save lives. Americans have and aversion to anything that smacks of collecting personal data, yet it is happening every day on the Internet.

The difference here is that the data on these cards saves lives and avoids unnecessary procedures and testing.

Dr. Frank Maletz is a founding partner of Crossroads Orthopedics in Waterford CT, he performs orthopedic surgery at L & M Hospital in New London, CT.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Lawrence & Memorial Seeks a Relationship With Westerly Hospital: Good for Patients?

Following a national trend of hospitals consolidating under one umbrella, L & M Hospital in New London, Connecticut, has been attempting to form a relationship with Westerly Hospital. Westerly Hospital is located in Westerly Rhode Island. According to the New London Day, Westerly hospital and its satellite North Stonington Health Center have faced financial challenges of late.

Similar consolidation is being seen in New Haven, Connecticut, where Yale New Haven Hospital has purchased other health care facilities and is bringing doctors who were previously in private practice under the Yale/New Haven Hospital umbrella.

The question no one seems to be asking is: Is this trend toward consolidated medical care good for the patient? Clearly it is good for the hospitals and doctors, or they would not be doing it. As a general rule, we favor competition. Having two hospitals within blocks or miles of each other gives the patient some choice and a motivation for each hospital to give better care. Once there is only one hospital, regardless of the name, will the quality of care improve?

For more information on the L & M/ Westerly Hospital merger see: www.theday.com

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Highway Fatalities In New London

The NTSB, National Transportation Safety Board, has just announced that the number of highway fatalities is down again for 2011. They attribute the decline to the use of seat belts and the requirement that cars have air bags. As personal injury lawyers working in New London County, we at Polito & Quinn have seen a dramatic reduction in serious injuries from serious car accidents. The requirement that operators and passengers wear seat belts along with improvements in the technology built into seat belts is largely responsible for the improvements in the statics here in New London. For more information consult the NTSB at www.ntsb.gov

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Medical Malpractice Certificate, An Artificial Obstacle to Victims of Medical Negligence

In its April 11,2012 Op/Ed piece New London Day argues that the current law relating to the Certificate of Good Faith should remain as is. The Day of New London posits that the certificate from a “similar” health care provider, rather than a “qualified” health care provider is essential because the certificate is not subject to cross-examination. This artificial distinction only serves to bar the court house door to injured patients.

Consider a patient who develops a bed sore while in a nursing home through medical negligence. The patient is cared for by LPNs, RNs, an APRN (wound care certified) and a MD. The MD supervises each of the nursing specialties, knows the standard of care that applies to each and is “qualified” to testify as to each at trial. Nevertheless, the patient must obtain opinion letters from each nursing specialty in order to institute the claim.

It should be sufficient that the Certificate say why the opinion writer is qualified to offer an opinion relating to the specific specialty. Neurosurgeons and orthopedic surgeons who do the exact same surgery and are qualified to testify at trial should be able to provide the certificate. The current law only serves to bar legitimate claims. See Day http://theday.com/article/20120417/OP02/304179998

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Emergency Room Malpractice Immunity

Doctors are asking the Connecticut legislature to pass a bill that would allow them to commit malpractice in the Emergency Room and deny the patient the right to be compensated for the patient’s injury.

Most of us like our doctors. Most of us have generally had good experiences with the medical profession. No one believes that a doctor ever intends to harm a patient. But doctors, like all humans, make mistakes. Unlike the car mechanic or the carpenter, medical errors are often life-altering or fatal. The effect of this Connecticut law, if passed, would allow Emergency Room doctors, in Connecticut, to avoid a claim by their patients no matter the seriousness the harm.

Consider this: A person is in a car accident. They are taken to the emergency room with neck complaints. An x-ray is taken and read as normal. In fact, the x-ray shows a broken vertebrae. The patient is released and sent home. On the way, the patient turns his head and severs his spinal cord and dies.

Under the proposed law an Emergency Room doctor who fails to meet the standard of care would be immune from a claim by the patient. There would be no compensation for an act of medical negligence. Remember, under the current law the patient still has to prove the case. Medical negligence claims are not intended to harm the doctor. The purpose is to compensate the patient, who, through no fault of his own has suffered an injury. All patients are asking for is a fair system. Not a system that excludes them.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Colonoscopy: Risks Your Doctor Isn't Telling You

We have all been told: You need to have a colonoscopy at 50 and every 5 years thereafter. This, we are told, is to guard against developing cancerous polyps in our colon. We are also told that there is a very low risk associated with the procedure.

The procedure is usually preformed in a free standing center under a mild anesthesia, often Propofol. That is the drug that Michael Jackson died using.
The proper way to perform the procedure is to only use so much of the drug that the patient is in a kind of twilight sleep. Most people, me included, tell the doctor "knock me out," I don't want to remember anything. The doctors tend to oblige. The problem, however, is that the patient does not register pain. Thus when the doctor is applying too much force, the patient does not register the pain. Too much force in the area of the spleen can result in irreparable damage and the need to have the spleen removed.

The spleen is an important organ for fighting infection. Without it the patient will have a lifetime of taking precautions including yearly immunization against a variety of illnesses.

Although the literature claims it is a rare complication of the procedure, this writer believes that the number of injuries are being underreported by the health care facilities.

This office has reviewed two such injuries in the last month. Both resulted in removal of the spleen, both resulted from routine colonoscopies, both occurred in New London County, each occurred in a different free standing center in New London County. Michael Quinn, Esq.

For more information: Singla, S, Journal Gastrointest Surg, 2012 March 27.

MRSA The Hospital Superbug

MRSA: How To Avoid This Hospital Based Superbug

MRSA or methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus is an infection caused by a strain of strep that is resistant to antibiotics. It is sometimes referred to as a superbug because it is so hard to treat.

Although MRSA can be developed among healthy non-hospital people, it is most often spread among people in the hospital.

MRSA often enters the body through a wound, like a surgical site or through an opening like a bed sore. Persons on dialysis are at special risk because their immune systems are vulnerable and the wound created by the IV.

A carrier, that is someone who is colonized with the bacteria, may not showing any signs of infection or ill health. In fact, a health care worker, doctor, nurse or nurse’s aide may be a carrier and totally unaware of it.

MRSA can be spread by clothing, jewelry or a stethoscope. It can be carried from one patient to the next in this way. Direct contact with a carrier or infected person is a principal source of the spread.

If you have ever been diagnosed with MRSA it is critical that you tell your doctors before any procedure that requires surgical interventions. Recurrences of the disease can sometimes be fatal.

Prevention: If you require hospitalization for any reason: find out what the hospital’s rate of infection is. Find out what precautions the hospital has instituted to prevent the spread of MRSA.

For example, in England, doctors visiting hospitals are prohibited from wearing neck ties, lab coats, jewelry, long sleeves nor are they allowed carrying a stethoscope.

You are the best advocate for your own health. If you see something ask. Find out and do not be shy as infection with MRSA is a serious and often life-threatening illness that can be prevented.

For more information contact the Centers for Disease Control, www.cdc.gov

Michael Quinn, Esq.