Here a kind of nifty graphic map showing unemployment rises from 2008 to the present. Interestingly, try as I might, I couldn't find Knox County. I found Roane, Sevier, Jefferson and Cocke Counties, but no Knox.

I guess that means we haven't had any unemployment increases here.

Memphis Commercial Appeal: New law weakens consumer protection.

WARNING: Banks want to reduce the number of foreclosure notices to make it easier for them to foreclose on property. So, where they now have to publish three notices, they want to reduce it to ONE notice. If you happen to miss the notice, you could have your property foreclosed out from under you.

Among the legislators supporting the bill: The House Democratic Leader, a bank executive who is also the president of the Tennessee Banking Association. No conflict of interest there, no sir! Jeez.

Murfreesboro Daily News Journal: Bill to cap damages not based on reality. But it'll be a reality unless Tennessee citizens wake up and smell the spoiled milk coming out of Nashville in the form of the Civil [In]justice Act of 2011. Here's the takeaway from this op-ed:

Ultimately, the question comes down to whether a jury of peers is competent enough to assess damage for a legitimate malpractice claim and award a proper amount. Or should elected officials determine an arbitrary amount that allows for no wiggle room in cases where larger amounts can be and should be awarded?

In this case of tort reform and the proposed capping of medical malpractice lawsuit awards, the fix appears worse than the problem.

A vote for this legislation is a vote of no confidence in the judgment of the Tennessee citizens who sit on juries, and have done so for the past 214 years.

Congressman Jimmy Duncan to Tea Partiers (and everyone else): Don't forget the 3rd through 9th amendments, either. That includes the 7th amendment right to a jury trial:

I have faith in the people - I have faith in the jury system. It's one of the most important elements of our freedom, and it was so recognized in the Constitution, was felt to be so important, it was specifically put into the Constitution in the 7th Amendment. And I'll tell you, it's a very dangerous thing to take away rights like that from the people... In fact, I can tell you, you have better regulation by juries than you have by federal government regulators - it's more effective.

RIP Roger Nichols. As a music engineer and producer, his contributions to the music world, just as Steely Dan's engineer, were incomparable. Here's a nice Wikipedia bio.

Tennessee Association for Justice:

A bill introduced in the Tennessee legislature would specifically allow hospitals and doctors to provide negligent medical care in Emergency Rooms in Tennessee. Unless a patient could prove gross negligence, a standard just short of criminal behavior, there would be no accountability or protection. The legislation is sponsored by Rep. Glen Casada and Sen. Jack Johnson, both from College Grove.

“For example, if you go to the ER with chest pains and the doctor carelessly misdiagnoses you with bronchitis and you go home and have a massive heart attack and die, under the proposed legislation there would be no recourse for this kind of sloppiness,” stated Phillip Miller, President, Tennessee Association for Justice. “In effect, a doctor would have no responsibility for careless errors that could cost
you your life.”

The current standard for medical negligence already affords protections to ER doctors. ER doctors are protected as long as they deliver care consistent with standards set by their peers—other ER doctors. Only if they fail to meet those standards and harm a patient will they rightfully be held accountable under the present law.

The immunity goes one step further and will also cover doctors in surgery and the OB unit if the patient is admitted through the ER. This means a patient who goes to the ER will have very little protection from negligence during their entire hospital stay.

This legislation has an unfair impact on women, children and low-income families since they are more likely to use the ER. Kids in sports go to the ER for injuries, pregnant women often go to the ER when they are in labor, and the elderly frequently rely on the ER for respiratory illnesses. These vulnerable citizens would be without any protection when seeking needed medical care.

If passed, HR HB 174/SB 360 would also place a financial burden on the taxpayers. If recipients of TennCare, Medicare and the uninsured are harmed due to carelessness in the ER, Tennesseans will end up paying the bill for a person’s medical care and treatment resulting from the doctor’s careless error. Medical errors cost the Nation approximately $37.6 billion per year, and this legislation would only add to that cost.

“Should a law be passed allowing ER doctors to commit negligent acts on patients in Tennessee? That’s exactly what this bill does.” said Miller. “With 98,000 people dying each year from medical errors, clearly the answer is NO. The focus should be on improving the quality of care – not on lobbyists seeking to pass a license to harm patients.”

More good news. Our (not so) wonderful governor wants to "deliver a knockout blow" to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, too. And, surprise, surprise: this bill would prohibit you from being able to sue your insurance company under the Consumer Protection Act (or most other laws) for unfair or deceptive practices if it fails to protect you properly.

This law has been in effect for 34 years. what possible reason -- other than the greed of Big Business and Big Insurance could be behind the sudden push to destroy this vital consumer law?

House Judiciary Subcommittee "rushes" vote on rights restriction bill: "Tennessee Citizen Action, a consumer rights organization, called the bill an 'attack on hard-working Tennesseans and their families. It should be called the "Miscarriage of Justice Act of 2011," ' " said executive director Mary Mancini.

This bill is bad law, bad policy, and a disaster for regular people in this state. Business and Big Insurance love it, though, because the bill, if passed into law, would prevent some types of legal redress, and make it that much harder to get compensated in other types of cases. Businesses don't have to worry so much about conducting themselves properly, and Big Insurance just keeps on rollin' on.

Tennesseeans need to tell their legislators to vote AGAINST this bill. Here's a link to figure out who your legislator is and contact them.

Would you take $750,000 for the life of your child? If the Tennessee Legislature passes the governor's rights restriction law, that's what you'll be limited to.

A word of warning here. I just ran across a site called "USWorkersComp.com." The site makes you fill out all your contact info, and then -- if you're in Tennessee -- it tells you there is no lawyer to assist you. The reason for this dead end is that the site is a marketing tool. Lawyers subscribe to it. Where are these attorneys from? California, Illinois, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and so forth. Looks like the closest lawyer to us is in Alpharetta, Georgia or Fayetteville, North Carolina.

Steer clear of sites like this one if you're looking for information on Tennessee law or Tennessee claims. Look for reputable Tennessee lawyers, in your locale, and who have experience in the type of case you have.

RIP Ned Ray McWherter. What's interesting is that there was no love lost between Ned Ray and Victor Ashe and Lamar Alexander. Where were their testimonials while he was still alive?

We have our own little Japan-type environmental disaster. Oh, and Japan's disaster seems to have reached East Tennessee, as well.

I don't know, but whenever I am assured that all this radiation doesn't pose a health risk, I start to glow all over.

ATT does it again! My main line is down, for some unknown reason. They are "working on it." If anyone wants to call the office, This one works:

(865) 544-5726

Sorry about the problems. Ugh.

More evidence that Republicans have no interest in the rights of regular people: The Senate has approved and sent to the governor a bill that would reduce the maximum civil penalty for a "knowing" violation of state insurance laws from $25,000 per occurrence to $1,000 per occurrence. This means that an insurance company can deliberately and in bad faith deny your claim, and there is essentially no state penalty.

And by the way, talk about conflicts of interest: "The measure was sponsored by Sen. Bill Ketron, R-Murfreesboro, and Rep. Charles Sargent, R-Franklin, who both operate insurance agencies."

If Governor Haslam cares a whit about this state's policyholders, he will veto this bill. Don't hold your breath.

I just ran across this article on the history of the Jack Daniels distillery in Lynchburg. Interesting fact: Moore County, where the whiskey is distilled, is a dry county. They can make it there, but you can't drink it there.

Molly's Plant Food confiscated by law enforcement: apparently, this stuff is considered as a synthetic substitute for ecstasy. But it's not been banned by statute, so if you wonder how the state can simply take this stuff off the shelves, read the AG's press release. In summary, the AG went to court, presumably in Nashville, and got a Chancellor to issue a temporary restraining order to allow the confiscation. Now, this shouldn't be a particularly easy task for the AG. He must prove there is a substantial risk of irreparable harm. His press release says that an emergency services doctor from Cookeville testified before the Legislature on this topic. His testimony must be how they proved imminent danger of irreparable harm.

Aha! Wait; did he really say that? Governor Bill Haslam admits his rights restriction legislation is unnecessary: "Tennessee has not had a problem with excessive awards in civil cases," he told the Tennessean newspaper in Nashville recently. But he's got to justify support for an unnecessary bill some way, doesn't he? This is the best he could come up with: Tennessee "should act to discourage trial lawyers from shifting their cases to the state in response to clampdowns on damages in other states." Well that's not right; Tennessee plaintiffs -- for the most part -- must have been injured in Tennessee before they can file suit in this state. As the retired circuit court judge author of the linked piece suggests, "Could it be that this corporate multimillionaire governor is attempting to remove yet one more layer of restraint on corporate greed and malfeasance in Tennessee?"

Uh, well yeah.

A few cosmetic tweaks to this blog. Hope you all like it!

The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act is one of the relatively few consumer-friendly laws in this state. It must be for that reason that the Haslam Administration is looking to gut that law, too. It's premium content, so here's the full article:

State lawmakers are taking a broad swing at the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, a far-reaching law that ups the stakes on legal liability for businesses while guarding consumers.

But changing the scope of the law, which could triple court damages, is about more than balancing business liabilities against consumer protection. Businesses not only deal with the risk of costly consumer lawsuits under the protection act, they use the law themselves to sue one another — as seen in high-profile cases involving May 2010 flood damage at Opry Mills Mall and Gibson Guitar Corp.

A large portion of the push comes within Gov. Bill Haslam’s tort reform proposal, a bill that’s drawn enthusiastic support from business interests and company leaders across many industries. Similar proposals in the Tennessee General Assembly are expected to fall under the Republican governor’s initiative, but others stand on their own and could create dilemmas for businesses.

The legal risks that come with the Consumer Protection Act are real to Jim Amos. As CEO of Tasti D-Lite — which moved to Franklin from New York for the friendly business climate — he considers steep legal liability a threat to the company’s network of small franchisees, no matter how good they are at customer service.

“That’s an extraordinarily difficult issue,” said Amos, who considers legal reform a gap in Tennessee’s business-friendly reputation. “In many cases the kind of litigation that results puts these folks right out of business.”

He and other businesses — including a new coalition across several industries called Tennesseans for Economic Growth — believe Haslam’s proposal will spur job growth by reducing risk.

Though an amendment was pending this week, Haslam’s tort proposal would make it more difficult for plaintiffs to invoke the Consumer Protection Act in a range of cases. It also would eliminate it from use in class-action lawsuits that challenge companies on behalf of a broad swath of consumers.

Critics warn that tort reform’s consumer provisions degrade the court system that’s supposed to protect everyone equally, while also opening up direct risks to businesses. Mark Chalos, a Nashville attorney with Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, argued that the Consumer Protection Act is a guard for responsible companies looking to do business in Tennessee.

“Weakening the civil justice system only protects wrongdoers and encourages bad conduct,” he said.

Another bill that progressed in the legislature this week would prevent the consumer act from being used in insurance cases, which Republicans say would end improper use of treble, or triple, damages.

They say customers still have legal standing and other recourse, but companies have become accustomed to invoking the law.

Simon Property Group, owner of the still-closed Opry Mills Mall, and Gibson, the Nashville guitar manufacturer that also sustained flood damage last year, both cited the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act in suits seeking tens of millions of dollars from insurers. The companies declined comment, but the triple damages under the law would provide the sort of compensation that trial lawyers argue is fitting as insurance disputes drag on.

That bill in particular creates a careful dance for business interests, who are enthusiastic about the governor’s proposal but are mulling how to sort out matters like insurance law.

Bills address range of consumer protection
The bills that compose Republicans’ broad push on consumer protections address a number of business concerns, but also contain unexpected dilemmas.

• House Bill 2008/Senate Bill 1522 — The bills, being carried by Republican leadership in the House and Senate, compose Gov. Bill Haslam’s tort reform proposal. One portion of the proposal deals with the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act on a number of fronts.

Opponents warn that eroding protections damages the court system and poses business risks — like lessening legal remedies against Ponzi schemers. But Bradley Jackson, vice president of governmental affairs for the Tennessee Chamber of Commerce & Industry, said the bill’s consumer measures provide more stability for businesses without eroding consumer protections.

“(Current law) creates an unpredictable and unstable environment,” he said.

• House Bill 1189/Senate Bill 1912 — These bills would prevent plaintiffs from leveraging the Consumer Protection Act in insurance lawsuits and the triple damages it can lead to in judgments.

This reduces risk for insurance companies, and Rep. Pat Marsh, the Shelbyville Republican pushing the bill in the House, said consumer protections have been used as “blackmail” by attorneys to force big settlements. Consumers and companies alike use the act in litigation, and Democrats raised some questions about consumer protections before consenting to the bill’s easy passage in a subcommittee this week.

Marsh said consumers — and companies who use the act — still have options for insurance disputes, including suing under the insurance code.

“You’ve got all the protection you’ve ever had,” he said.

• Other bills — A range of other bills address consumer protections. Most of those that seek to scale them back will likely fall behind Haslam’s proposal, insiders say, but there also are a range of bills that add consumer protections that are getting less traction.

Just to illustrate the way propaganda works, consider this statement from the link: “In many cases the kind of litigation that results puts these folks right out of business.” I don't know. I carry business liability insurance to protect me against those kind of risks. If the businesses complaining about consumer protection don't carry proper insurance for their protection,then I see no reason for them to complain.