“Assembly Member Elliot Anderson (D-Winchester) then asked the biggest question of them all: Why is this “emergency measure” popping up now, and does it stand any better chance of passing the Senate than AB 148 or the proposed Fiore-Hansen SB 175 amendment. All Oscarson Therecould say was “I certainly hope so.” Meanwhile, a whole lot of students, teachers, and concerned family members certainly hope AB 487 meets the same fate as the dead AB 148 and the failed SB 175 amendment.” [LTN]
The measure under discussion is AB 487, another iteration of the ammosexual agenda Carry Everywhere nightmare, and it’s due for a hearing (of sorts) in the Assembly Judiciary Committee bright and early on Wednesday morning [pdf agenda] if it can get “emergency status.” The tenacity of the gun advocates seems proportional to their delusion that somehow more guns will make up safer from more guns. In case you missed it, this Salon piece does an excellent point by point deconstruction of the right wing’s ideological stance on the issue.
There’s another bill coming up on Wednesday which deserves more attention than it’s likely to get in the waning days of a legislative session, SB 292.
“Section 1 of this bill provides that a board of trustees of a school district or the governing body of a charter school is not liable for any civil damages arising from any act or omission by a person employed by or volunteering at a school-based health center. Section 1 also defines “school-based health center” for such purposes.”
… Existing law limits the amount of noneconomic damages that may be an action for injury or death against a provider of health care based professional negligence. (NRS 41A.035) Section 3 of this bill limits noneconomic damages that may be awarded in such an action to $350,000, regardless of the number of plaintiffs, defendants or theories of liability. Existing law establishes a rebuttable presumption in actions for negligence”
This is NOT a School Nurse Protection Act, at least not the way it is worded. Notice the phrase “…by a person employed by or volunteering at a school-based health center.” So, volunteers manning the school sick bay, and not school nurses, cannot render the school or charter operation liable for their actions or their failure to act? If the person is a school nurse there are professional requirements for that. However, (and this is a pretty big caveat) non-certified personnel may be allowed to administer medication, for which there are no pre-service nor professional development specified training requirements. [NASBE] What could possibly go wrong?
But wait, there’s more! Senator Roberson seems intent upon his assault on the venerable Collateral Source Rule. The Legislative Counsel Bureau explains what happens under SB 291:
“A common law doctrine, known as the “collateral source rule,” prohibits a defendant in a tort case from introducing into evidence proof of amounts that the plaintiff received or was entitled to receive from a source other than the defendant in compensation for the harms or injuries caused by the defendant.”
Existing law provides a limited exception to the collateral source rule by allowing a defendant in a case against a provider of health care based upon professional negligence to introduce evidence of amounts paid or payable to a plaintiff pursuant to policies of health or accident insurance, the United States Social Security Act, worker’s compensation statutes and other programs or contracts that pay for or reimburse costs of health care. (NRS 42.021)
This bill replaces the existing limited exception to the collateral source rule and instead requires a court, upon a motion by a defendant in any tort case, to reduce the amount of damages initially determined by the jury or other finder of fact by the amount of past medical expenses paid in relation to the injury or death sustained. However, this bill prohibits the court from reducing the amount of the damages by any amount: (1) paid for any treatment, care or custody provided by a provider of health care or medical facility on a lien; or (2) paid pursuant to medical payment coverage. (emphasis added)
The “defendant” in this instance would be a negligent or otherwise incompetent health care provider. Again, whatever success a plaintiff may have had in court against a person who negligently caused their pain, suffering, and possible disability – Senator Roberson would like to see reduced by any amount covered by Social Security disability benefits, worker’s compensation, or health or accident insurance. The two bills are a double whammy for victims.
This session can’t end soon enough?