MBA Links

Section 115 provides for reviews and audits, including the empaneling of independent B-readers to spot check accuracy of submitted readings. The Administrator is also instructed to develop methods for evaluating medical evidence. Consequences may include disqualification of physicians or facilities if their evidence is found "not consistent with prevailing medical practices or the applicable requirements of this Act." Finally, Section 401 provides criminal penalties for fraud or false statements.

Transition Issues

Start-Up. S. 2290 would transfer all cases pending on the date of enactment, and all future cases, to the new system. By some estimates, as many as 300 thousand cases would be adopted at the outset, so that getting the system established and making what are supposed to be prompt decisions may be an administrative challenge. Concern has been expressed about claimants who may have their pending cases dismissed but must wait for the new system to begin. S. 1125 as passed by the committee included an amendment by Senator Feinstein that would delay termination of tort proceedings until the administrative system was up and running, but this was not included in S. 2290.

Status of Current Settlements. The bill (Subsection 403(d)) would in effect dismiss all claims that have not yet been finally adjudicated as of the date of enactment. Some questions have been raised about the consequences. First, the bill would terminate "inventory" or "matrix" agreements, which are open-ended, standing arrangements that pay specified amounts to claimants who qualify currently or in the future. One's view on whether these should be terminated will probably correspond with one's overall evaluation of the fairness of the proposed system vis-a-vis the current tort system. Furthermore, it is argued that some companies recently agreeing to settlements will pay much less under the bill's terms, and may even be stalling on finalization of the settlements because of that prospect.²⁵Again, one's view of this will depend on one's view of the overall scheme. As argued by the majority for passage, "The purported unfairness of preempting non-final settlement agreements ... [etc.] ... rests on the faulty premise that the existing system is somehow fair."²⁶

Cash Flow Timing. As noted, a large number of cases may be expected at the outset. Beyond the administrative challenge, questions have been raised about whether the initial flow of funds will be adequate. Testimony was received indicating that it could take eight years to collect the funds that are needed for the initial claims (Committee report, p. 208-209). But the majority for passage pointed

______________________________________________________________

²⁵Susan Warren, "Halliburton to Request Extension on Stay for Asbestos Obligations," Wall Street Journal (July 21, 2003), p. A3; and "Halliburton Deal on Asbestos Suits could be at Risk," Wall Street Journal (Aug. 13, 2003), p. C13.

²⁶Compare Committee report pp. 69-71 with pp. 206-208.

Jimbo's Mystery Links

Dating Dilemmas

NelsonComputerTech

Pirate Riddles

MBA Links

Asbestos