Letter to Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee From National Health Organizations Opposing Federal Class Action Legislation

July 9, 1999


Member, Committee on the Judiciary
United States House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515

RE: The Harmful Impact on Health Care of S. 353, the Class Action "Fairness" Act/H.R. 1875, the Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act

Dear Senate/House Judiciary Committee Member:

We are writing to oppose S. 353, the Class Action "Fairness" Act of 1999/H.R. 1875, the "Interstate Class Action Jurisdiction Act of 1999" because of the adverse impact the bill would have on the ability of patients and consumers to use class actions to hold health care providers accountable.

S. 353/H.R. 1875 weakens this important tool for patients and consumers by making it much easier for class action defendants to remove such lawsuits from state to federal courts. Even if a case is based solely on a state’s consumer protection laws, S. 353/H.R. 1875 would allow a defendant to force its removal to federal court. Removals to federal court are detrimental to consumers because:

HMO patient and consumer quality of care protections. S. 353/H.R. 1875 would undermine the few grounds on which patient and consumer state class action suits have been filed successfully - fraud, overbilling, and medical malpractice. These suits typically involve allegations of violations of individual states' consumer fraud and unfair trade practices laws.

For example, on June 23, 1997, Harold Kaitlin filed a class action in Pennsylvania state court for consumer fraud against his psychiatrist, David Tremoglie, and his HMO, Keystone Health Plan East, Inc. The complaint was filed on behalf of himself and all other patients treated by Tremoglie at the Bustleton Guidance Center. The class alleges that the class was treated by an unlicensed and fraudulent psychiatrist who illegally prescribed medications not suitable for their illnesses. In addition, the class alleged that the HMO failed to verify that Tremoglie was a psychiatrist, failed to supervise him, and referred patients to him.

Important consumer class actions such as these, even though based solely on state law claims, would be subject to removal to federal courts under S. 353/H.R. 1875, thereby diminishing the chances of adequate and timely recovery and giving the defendant corporation the ability to choose the court that would be most advantageous to their interest.

Death or serious injury from prescription drugs. The class action mechanism is an important tool for patients who have received similar injuries from prescription drugs, allowing them to aggregate their cases for cost-effective litigation; without it, patients in many cases would be unable to pursue their legitimate claims individually. That may explain why such billion dollar pharmaceutical firms as Procter & Gamble, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer actively lobbied Congress last year to pass H.R. 3789, the Class Action "Fairness" Act of 1998 [similar in scope to this year’s H.R. 1875].

The current managed care reform and prescription drug safety debates in Congress highlight the urgent need for more consumer protections and patients’ rights in the health care and insurance systems. S. 353/H.R. 1875 moves in the opposite direction of these bipartisan reform efforts by denying patients access to justice in state court. We therefore urge you to oppose S. 353/H.R. 1875. Thank you for your attention and consideration.

Sincerely,

AIDS Action Council
Center on Disability and Health
Families USA
National Association of Protection & Advocacy Systems
National Black Women’s Health Project
National Health Law Program
National Senior Citizen’s Law Center
National Women’s Health Network
NETWORK: A National Catholic Social Justice Lobby
Service Employees International Union (SEIU)
The Arc of the United States


Back to Class Action Letters

Back to Class Action Home Page

Back to Civil Justice Page