Nevada Coalition Kicks Off Campaign on Personal Injury Lawyers’ Ballot Measures

Leaders of a broad-based coalition of businesses and healthcare providers today unveiled their first television and radio ads urging voters to reject Questions 4 and 5.

The ads remind voters that despite their denials to reporters and surreptitious campaign report to the Secretary of State, personal injury lawyers wrote Questions 4 and 5, paid to qualify the measures for the November ballot, and are funding the campaign to pass them.

Question 4 would amend the state constitution to repeal the medical malpractice reforms passed in a special session of the legislature in 2002. Question 5 would amend the constitution to prevent the legislature from enacting any laws that limit attorneys’ fees or awards in personal injury cases.

“Higher healthcare costs, more frivolous lawsuits and higher insurance costs are the probable consequences if these measures pass,” said Kara J. Kelley, president and CEO of the Las Vegas Chamber of Commerce. “Our campaign will inform Nevada voters of what they can expect if Questions 4 and 5 are not defeated on November 2. Voters will better understand those consequences once they learn that personal injury attorneys are behind them.”

“Our first ad pulls back the curtain on the personal injury attorneys’ deceptive tactics,” said Dr. Michael Fischer, a Carson City Ophthalmologist and President of the Nevada State Medical Association. “First they denied they were involved in the qualification effort, even as a letter from the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association was circulating among personal injury attorneys raising money to pay the petition circulators. Then they filed a report with the Secretary of State that hides the sources of their financial support. Their tactics are as disingenuous as the measures they wrote.”

Dr. Fischer filed a complaint with the Secretary of State’s office after the Yes on Questions 4 and 5 Committee submitted its August 31 Campaign Contributions and Expenses Report listing “People for a Better Nevada” as the sole contributor to its $326,000 qualification effort. The committee refused to disclose the source of financial support for “People for a Better Nevada,” and the Secretary of State has launched an investigation.

Petition circulators told voters that Question 4 will reduce their insurance rates, but a similar rollback was declared unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On page seven of the petition, there is a provision that would repeal the medical malpractice reforms passed by the state legislature in 2002 to curb frivolous lawsuits and slow the exodus of doctors from Nevada.

“Question 5 would stop the state legislature from taking any action to reduce the hidden costs of frivolous lawsuits. These costs are ultimately paid by consumers through higher costs for housing, medical care and other necessities,” said Steve Holloway, Executive Vice President of the Associated General Contractors. “Frivolous lawsuits drive up the cost of housing and put home ownership out of reach for many Nevadans. But Question 5 would tie the hands of those we elect to solve these problems.”

Petition signers were told that Question 5 will stop frivolous lawsuits, but a lawsuit would have to be 100 percent frivolous for sanctions to apply – a standard that is virtually impossible to prove. Buried in the language of Question 5 is a provision that would constitutionally bar lawmakers from passing any laws that limit court awards or attorneys’ fees.

“Personal injury lawyers are asking voters to believe they want to stop frivolous lawsuits. They don’t give the public much credit,” said Jim Denton, a spokesperson for Nevadans Against Frivolous Lawsuits.