Bill Would End Gag Clauses That Stifle Victims Who Sue

[Rose Siding]

snip>
For decades, negligent doctors and other professionals in California have deterred their victims from reporting them to state regulators by making silence a condition of settling lawsuits. Regulators, consumer advocates and lawmakers say these legally dubious gag clauses are among the most troublesome gaps in California's consumer protection efforts.

They are pressing to ban the stipulations, even though Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger refused to do so last year. The governor vetoed legislation that had passed with bipartisan support, saying that eliminating gag clauses "does not further the goal of making California more business-friendly."

"The whole practice is just unconscionable, and it deprives executive branch agencies of the information they need to do their job," said Julianne D'Angelo Fellmeth, the state-appointed independent monitor for the Medical Board of California. "I don't understand how the governor didn't see that the first time around."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gagorders19apr19,0,3823025.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[D-Notice]

1. Wouldn't gag clauses go against

the 1st Amendment anyway?

[ZR2]

2. The 1st amendment only applies to government

It does not apply to individuals. In this case, the gag clauses are part of an out of court settlement deal.

[struggle4progress]

3. Yes!

[dsc]

4. There is a downside to this

One of the best forms of leverage a plaintif has to get a quick settlement is to threaten to go public. This removes that card. Many injured people are going to wait longer to be compensated thanks to this. It may be worth it, but it isn't all good.