Plan B Forum

Six major US tobacco companies have defeated a lawsuit by hospitals seeking compensation for treating patients with smoking-related illnesses.

Thirty-seven hospitals in the state of Missouri had claimed cigarette companies delivered an "unreasonably dangerous" product.

They sought more than $455m (£272m) reimbursement for treating uninsured smokers who had not paid for care.

The hospitals treat many destitute, non-paying patients.

They said medical ethics required them to treat people in need, regardless of their ability to pay.

In the case, the hospitals claimed that tobacco companies manipulated the nicotine content in cigarettes and misrepresented the health effects of smoking.

But a jury in St Louis rejected their claim.

"The jury agreed with Philip Morris USA that ordinary cigarettes are not negligently designed or defective," said Murray Garnick of Philip Morris.

An official from Lorillard, another company in the case, said: "Compelling evidence was presented to the jury, including testimony from hospital witnesses, that confirmed the hospitals were not financially damaged as they asserted."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13246990

So can we assume that cigarettes are well designed and effective at causing cancer?

This is liability theory I suggested using in tobacco litigation about 15 years ago. My version was that cigarettes are a nicotine delivery device -- that's what addicted smokers are buying -- and that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic and emphysema-inducing pollutants in the smoke rendered the product unsafe for its intended purpose of delivering nicotine. The litigation at that time went a different direction on liability theory, however.

Oh, and I know the Phillip Morris attorney (a partner at Dechert) from tobacco and pharmaceutical litigation here in NJ; she is a piece of work, as they say.

Oh, and I know the Phillip Morris attorney (a partner at Dechert) from tobacco and pharmaceutical litigation here in NJ; she is a piece of work, as they say.

Sue, does she smoke?

Sue U wrote:This is liability theory I suggested using in tobacco litigation about 15 years ago. My version was that cigarettes are a nicotine delivery device -- that's what addicted smokers are buying -- and that the polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and other carcinogenic and emphysema-inducing pollutants in the smoke rendered the product unsafe for its intended purpose of delivering nicotine. The litigation at that time went a different direction on liability theory, however.

Oh, and I know the Phillip Morris attorney (a partner at Dechert) from tobacco and pharmaceutical litigation here in NJ; she is a piece of work, as they say.

Since it has now been shown that cigarettes are a delivery system, can't they be charged with manslaughter, murder, or at least Kavorkianization?

Cigarettes are not a medicine and the substances they deliver that aren't known carcinogens are known toxins...

I'm guessing Missouri wasn't in on the lawsuit won by a few states 10(?) years ago resulting in billions of dollars to those states? (NY was)

The state actions were settled (not won) in 1998 and covered all states and US territories (although 4 states had previously settled separately outside the global Master Settlement Agreement). The state actions were specifically intended to recoup the costs of tobacco-related disease incurred by state Medicaid programs (and at $206 billion the states settled cheap). The case in the OP was brought by hospitals in Missouri who were trying to recover the costs of care that they had to eat because they weren't covered by Medciaid, Medicare or private payment. The federal government also brought a massive conspiracy case against the tobacco companies, which the government won in the trial court. I know it went up on appeal, but I stopped following that case several years ago, so don't know the final outcome.

ETA:

Miles wrote:

Oh, and I know the Phillip Morris attorney (a partner at Dechert) from tobacco and pharmaceutical litigation here in NJ; she is a piece of work, as they say.

Sue, does she smoke?

She may very possibly be smoking crack, given some of her courtroom antics.

Let me try to get my brain around this one:

The hospitals are required by law to treat patients who do not have the wherewithal to pay for their own care.

A certain group of patients are (it is alleged) seeking care for diseases that were (it is alleged) caused by the Defendants' products.

The patients (not a party to the suit) knew in advance that the products were lethal in their natural state, but (it is alleged) did not know of the additives used by the defendants to make them more lethal.

The Defendants owed a duty to the Plaintiffs to...

This is where I'm losing it. Seems to me the process goes something like: Duty => Breach of duty => proximate cause => damages.

Lawyers win. Everyone else loses.

The defendants owed a duty not to visit the costs of their tortious conduct on whomever they happened to fall - in this case - the plaintiff hospitals.

Just like an airline owes a duty not to have one of its planes fall on someone's house.

Put another way...let's assume that the smokers in this case were all insured - clearly the insurance companies covering them would have the ability to recover from the defendants if tortious conduct can be proven.

The plaintiff hospitals in effect operated as insurers for the smokers in this case = they paid the costs on behalf of the smokers and thus should be able to recover if tortious conduct can be proven.

Works for me.

Im still looking for who* set forth the idea that lighting some plant material on fire and deeply inhaling of the contents in a way to maximize the smoke intake would have good results down the road....

fortunately for humanity, the majority never concluded this was the way to go.







* = oh thats right, someone drew a cartoon camel...

quaddriver wrote:Im still looking for who* set forth the idea that lighting some plant material on fire and deeply inhaling of the contents in a way to maximize the smoke intake would have good results down the road....

fortunately for humanity, the majority never concluded this was the way to go.







* = oh thats right, someone drew a cartoon camel...

The Indians introduced it to Raleigh he introduced it to Europe.

I don't know who introduced it to the Indians...

This Raleigh guy....he be a pretty old dude?

Tobacco smoking is the practice where tobacco is burned and the vapors either tasted or inhaled. The practice began as early as 5000–3000 BC

Or at least a time traveller....

FWIW: tobacco use by males in the US and females even more so is really really kinda small compared to most of the rest of the world. I wonder why we get all the bad press. Oh thats right, such lawsuits elsewhere in the world would bring about executions.

Of the attorneys.

And we call other countries uncivilized....

This is a better summary of the case: http://amlawdaily.typepad.com/amlawdail ... bacco.html

There were two issues at stake, whether the product was defective and if so, were there any damages. Other claims were thrown out, such as conspiracy, fraud, negligence. It is hard to know what motivated the 9 jurors in the 9-3 decision, whether they really don't think cigarettes are defective (because they are so highly regulated), or because they just didn't think there were any damages.

It appears that the hospitals were trying to make a subrogation-like claim. That would be the hospital receiving an assignment from the patients to sue the third party who caused the health problems. I think most hospitals get that assignment as part of their sign in procedures. Similarly, insurance companies do that with their insureds. (However, it is hard to tell from the news accounts if this was a subrogation claim.) But if you read accounts of the case, the hospitals never put on proof of their specific damages. They just cited general studies of the damages caused by smoking and the percentage of population who does not have health coverage, and extrapolated lots and lots of damages. That general study might work on a national basis, but if private hospitals are looking to recover then they should have to show they were actually damaged. Plus, the hospitals build in indigent care into their rate structure -- they are already being compensated for such care.

The real ones damaged are all of us who pay health insurance and taxes, which are higher as a result of the healthcare provided to the indigent. The hospitals, and the anti-tobacco-crusading lawyers, were just looking for a windfall. To the extent a string of successful verdicts might change the rate structure to reduce the amount paying patients actually pay, this type of lawsuit is a highly inefficient way to make that happen. We already have that mechanism: every time a state wants more money they just raise tobacco prices and cite the medical costs to justify it.

You ever tasted that stuff from the mid east?

Real tobacco came from this part of the world...