The Nation; Judges Struggle To Control A Caseload Crisis
|
|
FOR months a handful of Federal judges from around the nation has been jockeying, lobbying and handing down opinions in a spirited and unofficial competition to take the lead role in resolving the asbestos-litigation crisis confronting the courts. They have made agreements among themselves that they have been unable to keep, issued rulings consolidating thousands of cases, which have subsequently been overturned, and fought with little success for control of tens of thousands of asbestos personal-injury cases. This week the contest moves to Washington. The Judicial Conference, the policy-making arm of the Federal judiciary that includes many of the most senior Federal judges, is to spend its annual meeting on Tuesday reviewing a dire report on asbestos personal-injury litigation recently completed by a panel of judges appointed by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist. The report paints a disturbingly detailed and bleak portrait of a court system inundated with cases that it cannot adequately handle. Thousands are dying before their asbestos cases come close to being decided. More and more major manufacturers of the fire-retardant substance are seeking refuge from such proceedings behind the protections of bankruptcy law. And lawyers for all sides and the insurance companies are walking away with fees that consume two-thirds of the available resources, a fact that has led the committee to conclude that all available industry funds will be depleted within a few years. For every case that is settled or tried, nearly two are being filed, in large part because often-fatal diseases caused by exposure to asbestos, like mesothelioma, a malignant tumor of the lungs, can take decades to become apparent. The committee predicts that the number of court cases, at latest count 30,401, will grow by 50 percent in the next three years. But the committee is modest in its recommendations. Rejecting suggestions that it recommend changes in tort law, bankruptcy law or worker’s compensation, the committee instead urged Congress to provide a “national solution,” without providing specifics about what that ought to entail. “I’ve got a file of draft legislation, but we were advised that we were risking an impropriety by recommending specific legislation,” said Federal Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Reavley of Austin, Tex., the chairman of the committee. He said the issue came down to one of separation of powers and whether judges ought to recommend legislation that, if adopted, they would inevitably have to interpret. If the Judicial Conference adopts the recommendation to urge Congress to act, the judges will find few sympathetic ears on Capitol Hill. More : query.nytimes.com |