CHANEY LAW FIRM BLOG

Subscribe to our Blog

Nathan Chaney teaches class on emerging legal and ethical issues

This morning, Nathan Chaney taught his class on the legality and ethical issues surrounding the insurance industry’s current attempts in Arkansas to represent policyholders using employee-attorneys. You can download a copy of the course materials here and a copy of Nathan’s presentation slides here.

Nathan enjoys giving back to the legal profession by educating fellow attorneys on emerging issues of law, and he appreciates the participation by the attendees of the class. Special thanks goes to Toof Brown, who was Nathan’s opponent in a recent case but was gracious enough to attend and lend his perspective.

Doctors for public health and safety, against tort reform

Doctors are generally thought to be in favor of tort reform, but for many MD's this is a knee-jerk reaction to medical malpractice lawsuits. In truth, medical errors are believed to cause up to 98,000 deaths annually, according to a 2003 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association. That puts medical errors in the top ten causes of death in the U.S.

Around 1% of all hospital patients become victims of malpractice, and 5% of physicians are responsible for half of the medmal cases filed in this country. Just 3% of malpractice victims actually file claims, and doctors and hospitals avoid paying for 80% of the harm they cause to malpractice victims. See http://www.centerjd.org/cjrg/Numbers.pdf for more statistics.The statistics prove that the notion that malpractice claims are out of control is an advertising gimmick that permits malpractice insurers to price-gouge doctors.

Some doctors see through the insurance industry propaganda. The current and former Editors of the New England Journal of Medicine ("NEJM"), which is the oldest continuously published medical journal in the world, filed a "friends of the Court" brief in a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court case. This case was against a pharmaceutical company for releasing a dangerous drug on the market, despite having knowledge that the drug had dangerous side effects. The drug company withheld information from the Food & Drug Administration about these dangerous side effects. The plaintiff was a woman who was administered the company's drug and who had her arm amputated as a result. A jury awarded the plaintiff $7.4 million dollars in damages.

The Editors of the NEJM, who are highly educated doctors, reviewed several cases in which drug companies "equated increased warnings with a loss of sales, [giving them] an incentive to delay warnings as long as possible... [C]ertain pharmaceutical companies have already proven themsleves unwilling to prioritize safety over profits, even when faced with the threat of civil liability." The Editors argued that the jury's verdict should stand because a robust tort system is required to effectively monitor drug companies and to improve the lives of injured patients and their families. The Editors also believed that elimination of tort claims would "threaten this nation's public heath."

Well-educated and highly-respected doctors who have studied tort reform believe that a strong tort system is needed to protect patients. That should speak far more loudly than propaganda designed to pad the profits of drug manufacturers and insurance companies.

Nathan Chaney to present a seminar at the Arkansas Bar Meeting

Nathan Chaney will present a seminar this Thursday, June 10, from 10:45–11:45 a.m., at the Arkansas Bar's Annual Meeting entitled "In-House Insurance Defense Counsel: Permissible Cost Saving Measure or Impermissible Conflict of Interest."

Nathan's seminar will discuss the legalities and ethics surrounding insurance companies' attempts to represent policyholders using attorneys employed by those same insurance companies. Nathan recently won a contested hearing on this issue, which was the subject of a previous post here.

We hope to see you at the Arkansas Bar's Annual Meeting!

Chaney Firm scores win for Arkansas insurance policyholders

The Chaney Law Firm recently won a hard-fought victory over Farmer's Insurance Group about whether the insurance company could use lawyers employed by the company to represent the company's customers. Nathan Chaney presented the case to Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chris Piazza. Nathan argued that Farmers' practice of representing customers violated an Arkansas law that prohibits corporations from practicing law, which has been the law in Arkansas since the 1920's. Corporations can represent themselves in lawsuits or in transactions with other people, but cannot make a business out of representing other people in court.

Nathan also argued that the attorney employed by Farmers had a conflict of interest as a result of his employment by Farmers. The conflict of interest arises because of the risk that an attorney employed by an insurance company will not be able to give his "undivided fidelity" to the policyholder. Furthermore, it creates an appearance of impropriety when a lawyer, who has a company car and credit card and is paid exclusively by an insurance company, says he can set all those things aside and make decisions in the best interests of the policyholder.

The result means that insurance companies in Arkansas will have to hire independent attorneys to represent policyholders. This is known as the duty to defend, and every Arkansan with an insurance policy pays premiums so that a lawyer will be hired on their behalf if they are ever sued. People who have been involved in lawsuits know that it is a long process, and an attorney who can take an independent look at the pros and cons of your case is a necessity.

The Chaney Law Firm is proud to protect the rights of ordinary Arkansans. If you have ever been represented by a lawyer employed by Farmers, we would be happy for you to contact us about remedies you may have against Farmers for engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.