McHenry County Blog

As reported last night on McHenry County Blog, 8th congressional district GOP candidate for congress has started a radio attack to be followed by negative direct mail on the person he must think is the person to beat—Kathy Salvi. Here is the Daily Herald story.

His attack is on her stand on the federal government’s capping pain and suffering.

Thus far, Kathy Salvi has been following former President Ronald Reagan’s “11th Commandment” not to criticize other Republicans.

There is a danger that any Republican candidate has from going negative. The candidate must not make the supporters of the one being attacked so angry that they will sit out the fall election.

Below is Salvi’s answer to the Chicago Tribune questionnaire’s question about legal reform. (David McSweeney’s camp has thus far refused to allow his Chicago Tribune answers to be published on McHenry County Blog, along with those of Ken Arnold, Bob Churchill and Salvi. To read them all, click here.)

Legal Reform

Legal reform is another area where an impact can be made by the federal government.

I support legislation which would prohibit a plaintiff in any tort case from forum shopping. Forum shopping is where a plaintiff picks a state or jurisdiction that is pro-plaintiff. The plaintiff should be required by federal legislation to file his case where the incident occurred.

I support loser pays legislation, which provides that the loser of a medical malpractice case must pay the opponent's costs. I also support limits on punitive damages. Punitive damages are designed to punish tortfeasors for violating important national policies. For example, if a national or international corporation knows its product will kill patients, but hides that fact from the USFDA, a federal punitive measure is appropriate, but should be limited. The limit should be $500,000.

These are all areas which need federal legislation because they involve either national policy goals, or they involve matters which can only be handled by the federal government.

I do not support, however, the federal government telling the states how to run their courts. I support states' rights. Elected representatives of the people of a state should be allowed to have control over how their state court system operates. One exception, in my opinion, is if it involves a matter which can only be accomplished by the federal government. Another is a matter involving national policy goals, such as drug safety.

For example, a single state cannot prohibit a plaintiff from filing in a different, pro-plaintiff state. Only the federal government can accomplish this.