Welcome/Introductions
Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Bill Ryan. I'm the president and CEO of The Center for Health Affairs (CHA). Thank you all for being here today. We are very pleased to be hosting today's event along with the Academy of Medicine of Cleveland / Northern Ohio Medical Association (AMC/NOMA).
As you all know, this fall, the Ohio electorate will choose who will sit in three of the seven seats on the Ohio Supreme Court. The candidates for these seats have joined us here today. Two are incumbents -- Chief Justice Thomas Moyer and Justice Terrence O'Donnell. Joining them in those races are Judge Ellen Connally and Judge William O'Neill. The third race is for an open seat, and running for that post are Judge Nancy Fuerst and Judge Judith Lanzinger. On behalf of The Center and AMC/NOMA, I'd like to welcome each of the candidates and thank you for participating in this forum. We hope this will be a valuable opportunity for the attendees to learn more about your ideas, backgrounds and philosophies, and that it will help them be even more informed when they cast their votes in November.
Each of the candidates has an impressive background and credentials. I'll provide a brief overview, and you can read more about them in your programs.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer took office in 1987. During his tenure, he has been committed to ensuring the integrity of the judiciary and enhancing access to the courts by Ohio's citizens. Before becoming Chief Justice, he served eight years as a judge on the Court of Appeals of Franklin County, four years as executive assistant to the governor, and eight years in private practice. He has also been active in a variety of professional organizations and has worked with judicial leaders in a number of other countries, including the Ukraine and Argentina, to improve their system for the administration of justice.
Judge C. Ellen Connally also has a long and distinguished career on the bench. From 1980 until January of this year, she served as a Cleveland Municipal Court Judge. Prior to her election to the bench, Judge Connally served as a General Trial Referee for the probate division of the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, and as a law clerk in the Cuyahoga County Court of Appeals. Dedicated to both her profession and the community, she gives of her time to numerous organizations and currently serves on the City of Cleveland Fair Campaign Finance Commission, Community Action Against Addition and Cleveland Public Theater.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell became a member of the Ohio Supreme Court in May 2003. He began his career as a law clerk to Ohio Supreme Court Justice JPP Corrigan. He also clerked for judges on the Eighth District Court of Appeals in Cuyahoga County, where he later returned as a judge. An experienced trial judge, he served 14 years on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas. Justice O'Donnell also brings to the court significant service to the legal profession and the community. His organizational involvement includes the Cleveland Bar Association Law Related Education Committee, the Ohio Legal Rights Service Commission and Our Lady of Wayside.
Judge William O'Neill was first elected to the 11th District Court of Appeals in 1996. Prior to taking this post, he served as an Assistant Attorney General for the State of Ohio, where he represented the Ohio Civil Rights Commission and the Industrial Commission of Ohio. An experienced trial lawyer, he has served as lead counsel in over 100 jury trials. Judge O'Neill's professional interests also include healthcare. Having graduated from the Huron School of Nursing in recent years, he currently works on-call as a Registered Nurse in the Pediatric Emergency Room of Hillcrest Hospital.
Judge Judith Lanzinger has a legal career that spans nearly 26 years, including 19 as a state court judge. Judge Lanzinger, now serving on the Sixth District Court of Appeals, began her legal career with Toledo Edison Company, specializing in environmental law. She also worked in private practice in the fields of employment law and litigation before being elected to the Toledo Municipal Court in 1985. She has been elected seven times to judicial positions. From 1989 to 2003, she served on the Lucas County Common Pleas Court, where she heard civil and felony cases.
Judge Nancy Fuerst is presently in her second term on the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court, the largest bench in Ohio. In this post, she has personally disposed of more than 9,300 combined civil and felony criminal cases. Her previous private practice experience included handling hundreds of civil and criminal cases, chairing arbitration panels and mediating civil disputes. Prior to entering private practice, she worked as a law clerk in U.S. District Court and as a clerk extern in the Eighth District Court of Appeals doing legal research and draft writing.
Again, thank you and welcome to our distinguished panel of judicial candidates.
I will now turn the podium over to our cosponsor for this event. Dr. William Seitz is President of the Academy of Medicine of Cleveland / Northern Ohio Medical Association.
William Seitz MD:
Introductory Remarks -The Spiraling Conundrum
What is the spiraling conundrum? Unfortunately it is the evolution of a potentially bleak future for medical care in Northern Ohio unless some changes occur. The high cost of medical liability insurance, decreased reimbursements for patient care, fear of malpractice suits have effected the way physicians practice, have effected the number of physicians available to practice medicine and have had a negative effect on the bright, young physicians in training who should be the future of medical care in our region.
The citizens of Northern Ohio have always had access to high quality, state-of-the-art medical care. We have some of the world's best physicians and finest institutions. Medical care in our region has been consistently recognized by many national publications, as among the best our nation has to offer. From an economic standpoint, the concentration of medical services in Northeast Ohio makes the practice of medicine the largest single employer in the region.
While we can take pride and comfort in these facts, we are in the midst of a crisis that is threatening the health of our citizens and welfare of our region's economy. We are used to easy access to high quality, affordable healthcare. We as physicians are the first to believe and admit that when quality is not there, when people are injured due to negligence or medical error, they should be compensated but.... when meaningless lawsuits coerce settlements, there is a domino effect for which all of us pay the price. The skyrocketing costs I eluded to, progressively more unavailable professional liability insurance and fear of suit, has had a significant adverse effect on the doctor-patient relationship. Today, Ohio is sixth on the list of States with the highest lawsuit settlements with 34% of the awards over $1 million. Cleveland juries gave out of the highest penalties in the state. The largest Grand Jury award in Cuyahoga County has gone from $14.4 million to $23.5 million in four years. If this trend continues unchecked, access to quality medical care will decline. The prime contributor to this situation has been the proliferation of meritless lawsuits, the escalating costs of defending such suits, excessive jury awards and settlements.
An AMC/NOMA survey performed last year found that physicians in Northeastern Ohio experienced a 60% increase in their malpractice premiums in 2002 and an additional 66% increase in 2003. Over 12% indicated they were unable to obtain coverage. 61.7% of physician responders believed if this trend continued unchecked within two years they would have to discontinue or limit their practice. Another AMC/NOMA survey of hospitals throughout the State demonstrated that in 38 hospitals 136 physicians were lost to practice due to the malpractice crisis (an average of 3.6 physicians per hospital staff either stopped practice, dropped privileges, left town or retired specifically due to the malpractice situation. While in another survey of medical students, we found that career choices demonstrated avoidance of the very specialties from which physicians were being lost as well as a definite reluctance to practice in Ohio because of the malpractice climate. The State with the greatest success in keeping lawsuit abuse under control is California. Why? Because California enacted MICRA, the Medical Insurance Compensation Reform Act in 1975. Malpractice insurance premiums were reduced as a result from $18,856 in 1976 to $8,733 in 1993. Malpractice insurance premiums in California are now 1/3 to 1/2 those paid by physicians in States with no caps. In fact the growth of medical malpractice premiums in California since 1976 has been 167% while the rest of the States has been 505%.
MICRA has saved physicians thousands each year in malpractice premiums because carriers have to spend less time in litigation and have more predictable payments. Before MICRA, it took an average of five years before time of settling. Now the time to settlement is seventh shortest in the nation with a mean of 3.42 years. The cumulative payment amount is the lowest in the nation and under MICRA the injured person gets more of the money awarded by the court for damages rather than the plaintiff's lawyers because of caps on attorney contingency fees.
The Ohio Supreme Court has the last word that could resolve this spiraling conundrum in our State. The Ohio Legislature has previously passed tort reform laws only to have the Ohio Supreme Court strike down the law. New tort reform legislation has passed and was signed into law in April of 2003. We need to assure that the Ohio Supreme Court upholds this law. Insurance companies believe the medical liability crisis could abate if the Ohio Supreme Court upholds the law. Hopefully this may just be the beginning, and in time there may be additional laws enacted to further protect patients and streamline the professional liability system, and resolve our spiraling conundrum.
In November voters across the State will be asked to elect members to the court. It is with this background that I would now like to introduce someone who probably needs very little introduction to this audience. Monica Robins is the WKYC Health Anchor where she has been a key member of the news team for the past six years. Her in-depth analysis spanning a wide variety of health issues has kept the citizens of Northern Ohio informed of the cutting edge issues effecting healthcare today. Ms. Robins was recently honored for her informative medical reporting by the Academy of Medicine of Cleveland/Northern Ohio Medical Association at our Annual Meeting. A graduate of West Virginia University with a degree in broadcast journalism, she has extensive background working in both radio and television. She has held the position of health anchor with WKYC since the year 2000 and in 2001 she participated in the Academy of Medicine's Mini Internship Program shadowing physicians in their daily activities. We are very fortunate to have her moderate this form. I am going to ask her now to take over the podium and lay down the ground rules, which should provide us with an enlightening debate and discussion. Please welcome Monica Robins.
Monica Robins - moderator.
Thank you Dr. Seitz and I'd also like to thank The Academy of Medicine Cleveland/Northern Ohio Medical Association and The Center for Health Affairs for considering me to be the moderator for this event. I am truly honored. Medical Liability of course is an issue that affects all of us in one-way or another. This court may once again be faced with deciding the fate of the recently passed laws. So before we get started I would likely to briefly review the format ... Before we get started, I would like to briefly review the format for this afternoon. We hope the event will be somewhat informal, but to keep the discussion moving, we'll be using a timer and will ask that you stay within the allotted time. Before the questions and answers begin, each candidate will have three minutes to provide opening remarks. When we begin the questions and answers, each candidate will have a minute and a half to respond. The timer is in front of you. When the light changes from green to yellow, you'll know you have 30 seconds remaining. A red light will indicate time is up.
We will alternate which candidate is first to answer the question. Given our limited time this afternoon, we don't plan to allow time for rebuttals, and we ask that you refrain from directing your responses at the other candidates. We also will not be taking questions from the audience.
If time allows, following the question and answer session candidates will be invited to briefly offer closing remarks. We'll wrap up at 4:30.
Now we'll get started with the opening remarks. Chief Justice Moyer, I'd like to invite you to begin.
Opening Remarks:
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer:
I'd like to begin by commending the CHA and AMC/NOMA for providing all of you here with an opportunity to talk to the candidates and have us talk to you. At the end of this session you will have an opportunity that very few citizens in Ohio will have. Many people voting for justice have no idea who we are or what our views are. And so I commend you for making this opportunity available. Philosophy, I know that's one of the topics you are interested in. Mine is very simple, it's traditional, the majority view of the country and simply stated it says I recognize that while on the supreme court we have immense power to say the law is whatever we like to say it is, that the traditional view says that we constrain the use of that power, and we don't write the law, we simply interpret the law as clear as we should find the law aw written. There are great temptations sometimes to change the law and make it better, a better outcome, better statute, that is not our role. If we did that we're overriding the will of the people who believe in our system that the representatives represent the people. Another part of that philosophy is that we presume that legislators intend to adopt constitutional legislation so when a court is asked to declare an act of legislature unconstitutional, there is a very high hurdle to be jumped before a court will declare an act of the legislative branch unconstitutional, so that's my very very quick overview of my philosophy. It produced for me in this campaign already, a number of endorsements from a wide variety of those who are interested in the race; the unions, Fraternal Order of Police, Medical Association and the Chamber of Commerce. I am pleased because that says that whether one agrees or disagrees with the vote of Chief Justice Moyer, they believe that based upon the record the law and the facts and nothing else that is the basis of our system. In addition to the adjudicating role of the court, which is of course the constitutional role, and the position of any supreme court. I have a strong record of providing/making the court look like a resource for other courts in the state. We provide mediation, we have staff who do nothing except go out and help courts with case management plans and provide mediation programs, train mediators, provide technology consultants, service related to help courts decide what their technology needs are. That role of the court is really in some ways more important to trial courts and people who use trial courts than are some of the decisions that we make. We also have opportunities to appoint taskforces, jury service taskforces, to make jury service more attractive and meaningful. He is part of a Futures Commission, which is a long range commission which looks at our justice system and tries to project what our needs to be 15 - 20 years from now. We have a taskforce currently reviewing the increase in persons in Ohio who go to our courts.
Justice C. Ellen Connally opening remarks:
I sincerely apologize for being late this afternoon, for those who know me I am sort of a maniac about being on time. If I'm 5 minutes late my friends are ready to send out the police. To explain my delay, my son is in the Marine Corps in Iraq; I got that terrible phone call on Sunday saying that he was injured. He'd been blown up in an explosion, with a concussion and facial scars. To cut to the chase after two congressmen called and said he was in the hospital, and he wasn't going to be life-flighted to Germany, the Marine Corps announced today it was a mistake, that there was another Marine that was injured and that Marine's mother has been calling and can't get any information. So, I've had to call off the media who were going to write a story about this, so I'm a little "discombobulated" and I apologize.
I'm a 25-year breast cancer survivor; I owe my life to physicians. My father died 1999 after surviving colon cancer, prostate cancer and finally dies of Hodgkin's lymphoma and all those times I dealt with doctors. My grandfather was a doctor, graduated from Howard University Medical School in 1892 and he was actually the first physician black or white to give smallpox vaccine in South Carolina. The essence of being a judge is to be fair and impartial, and to listen to both sides. Some of you have heard judges who say I'd lock up every drunk driver; they all should go to jail. Well if you had a cocktail on the way home and you got stopped by the police, you wouldn't want that judge who says, "I'm locking up every drunk driver-you'd want a judge who would be fair and impartial. I believe that I can listen to both sides of the argument, apply the law as it is given to me by legislature and strongly consider both sides of an argument before I reach a decision. In terms of the administrative function of the chief justice I believe that the courts of Ohio could do a better job of disposing of cases. That there are many delays that we have judges that are not working up to their full ability. I believe that I can be a chief justice and be effective in the state of Ohio.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell opening remarks:
I'd like to express my personal appreciation to CHA and AMC/NOMA for the opportunity to be here this afternoon.
It is really enriching to find that there are so many of you that are so interested. Obviously we're focused on a particular topic. The difficulty is when you enter the judicial branch of government you are not representing constitutiencies, you see, the philosophy is that there are 3 branches of government, the legislature is the representative branch, the executive is the enforcement branch and it is the function of the judicial to interpret laws. That's why judges take an oath and the oath is to support the constitution and to support the laws of the State of Ohio. Now why is that important? I've served as a member of the state Judiciary for almost 24 years now, 14 years in the common pleas court, and I had the privilege to serve on the 8th district court of appeals as an appellate court judge for more than 8 years. The inscription behind the bench in the courtroom at the 8th district court of appeals says, "We are a government of laws, not the government of men". And so judges don't represent viewpoints, constitutiencies or issues. No, judges are supposed to be faithful to law, and by doing so and by enforcing the laws that are enacted by the general assembly and interpreting those laws in accordance with their judicial duties, by so much do judges add the predictability to the law and stability in the field of jurist prudence. This enables lawyers to understand what the law will be and they can advise their clients intelligently, as to conduct of their affairs and this lends great order to our society. Now judges are not permitted to make any pledges or promises of performance in office other than the faithful impartial discharge of their duties. And that is the pledge that I've made throughout the campaign and the reason why I'm asking to retain the seat that I am now holding on the court.
Judge William O'Neill opening remarks:
You know that I'm a Vietnam Veteran; you know that I'm a nurse; you know that I'm a judge on the court of appeals. I want to talk to you about medical issues as I run for the supreme court of Ohio. I work on call as a registered nurse in the pediatric emergency department at Hillcrest Hospital where we like to think we give world-class care. And you know, when kids come to see us, the first 10 minutes is about the worst 10 minutes of their life because we do a simultaneous triage there. And so while the doctor is poking and prodding, and the nurse is listening, and the registration people are getting them ready to be admitted to our department, the first ten minutes is a little bit uncomfortable for the patient. But we do that because we believe that we need data, we need to know what we're faced with and when a kid shows up in our department and their temperature is about 40 and their heart rate is about 150 and they have a history of nausea, vomiting... we think we know what were looking at here, it's probably in medical terms a kid that about a quart low and running hot. Before we jump into action however, we have to start doing some testing. And I hear you Dr. Seitz when you say the future is bleak and in preparation for coming here today I personally spoke with a neurosurgeon whose medical malpractice premiums have gone from 125K to 250K per year in the last 5 years. So to suggest that there is not a problem would be duplicitous. I as a lawyer and a Judge know there is a problem but I take serious issue with the way the problem is being addressed in the state of Ohio. Chief Justice Moyer is absolutely right, we presume what the legislature passes is constitutional. Why therefore when the Ohio Supreme Court declared caps on non-economic suffering and pain unconstitutional in 1999 were they reenacted by the legislature in 2003? Let me suggest to you as doctors and administrators we have a right to demand from the Ohio General Assembly that they do a real triage of the system; talk to us about greedy trial lawyers, we need to hear about it, talk to us about negligent doctors, there are some, we need to hear about it. Talk to us about the secrecy inside the insurance industry, we need to hear about that. I suggest to you that a full triage is needed before we start the healing process. I think you've been robbed as physicians in the last few years because you are entitled to a full hearing. Thank you.
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger opening remarks:
Thank you CHA, AMC/NOMA for this opportunity to meet all of you. You heard that I've been a judge now for 19 years. Just to recap a bit about my background, I spent the first three years as a municipal judge hearing high volume cases. I spent 14 years as a Lucas County Common Pleas judge, hearing serious felony matters as well as civil trials, many of which were medical malpractice cases. The most serious cases of course being death penalty cases of which I've had 12. As an elected judge, and going through the campaign process I find that the issues that we're going to be discussing here are issues that resonate through the state and I am very aware that these are not concerns totally in the Cleveland area. I have found that there are concerns about doctors who are sued simply because names are on the chart, and many of the things that Dr. Seitz has already cited to you. I am very happy when I hear that more than anecdotal evidence is being gathered and that numerical studies are being done; statistical information is being given to the general assembly where those policy decisions will eventually have to be made. Certainly it appears that the legislation passed in April 2003 may come before the court, so as the other judges will no doubt agree, we cannot talk about how we would vote on any potential case that would come by from that legislation. But based on my background on what I always refer to as the traditional view of judging, I believe in noting that the policy decision-making has to be done at the legislative level. That's where our laws are passed. We have a representative government; they are the ones who have to make those hard choices. Even imperfect law may have such constitutional muster; it is certainly not for judges to substitute their personal ideas of what the law should be and overturn the legislative will. I hope that as people get to know me, see my background, they will see that I am ready to serve as a fair and impartial judge on the Supreme Court.
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst opening remarks:
Good afternoon I am Judge Nancy Fuerst, presently serving on the common please court, just down the street and I have come to you after charging a jury on a criminal case, so I am quite delighted to be here, what a change of pace for me today. I am here to present myself to you as a candidate and introduce myself and let you know what my qualifications are, answer any questions you might have, but also to ask for your support and your vote and consideration on November 2nd. I agree with everything I've heard here from my colleagues and I can tell you that as a Common Pleas court in the general jurisdiction we are those types of cases that you are concerned about which deal with medical affairs, and over the years that I have served there, the 8 years, that being named in a lawsuit is a very tough thing for anyone including doctors, nurses or hospitals whose care quality of care is being questioned. So we do see those problems that you are concerned about. We see that many sources of the problems might be the lack of nursing care that you are concerned about, disregard for lack of protocol that need to be followed, lack of informed consent, lack of communication and follow up between physicians maybe and their patients or the nursing staff and the patients. Those are the types of problems that we see that arise and eventually need to be resolved in our court. I say that having disposed of 9500 cases, we're up 200 since this printing. In resolving that many cases, and many of those being in the medical field, I cannot say that many of those medical cases have gone to trial. Those that have seem to be kind of cases that probably there was a real dispute, and indeed there have been awards for the plaintiff, but most cases that you are well aware, end up settling for whatever the reason. So the court really has no idea if there was merit or if the parties settled because of the risk involved here. So we know that that's a problem for those of you who are concerned about health affairs. I also see the types of cases where two companies who are concerned with reimbursements are also having disputes. So we are aware of that problem as well. Thank you.
Questions begin here
In the opening comments it was clearly articulated that there is a medical liability crisis in Ohio affecting patients - the electorate. Tort reform has passed in Ohio on three separate occasions only to be overturned by the Ohio Supreme Court. The court determined that these reforms were "unconstitutional" because they violated the single subject rule. Other states have been able to enact and sustain meaningful tort reform laws. [Question 1] What is it about Ohio's constitution and rules that suggest that these laws are unconstitutional here?
Judge C. Ellen Connally reply:
The concern that I have about this whole question of tort reform is that we do not have sufficient information. I am referring to an editorial in the Plain Dealer on March 10th that states that we are concerned about these liability cases but we're working on very very sketchy information. This is one of the reasons that Representative Oeslager is trying to get a study where we would have the actual study. It is important that we be fair and base our decisions regarding tort reform on actual statistical information. At this point I do not believe that we have the statistical information to make these kinds of decisions.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell reply:
The analysis of constitutional consideration of a statute begins by examination of the statute and the constitutional provision with which the issue may be in conflict. And then the court undergoes a study as to whether or not those positions are in direct conflict, one with the other or whether they can be harmonized. The prior cases that have been considered by the court most recently, the Sheward case, never developed at the trial, no evidence was ever presented, there was never a record made, no witness ever testified, and no appellate court ever conducted review. The Supreme Court entertained a case file on examination of the bill as it had been signed into law by the governor, and there was a 4:3 decision of the Ohio Supreme Court with a strong dissent written as to the procedure by which that case was brought to the court's attention. And so it's difficult to capsulize this in 2 minutes, but proper Supreme Court review on a constitutional issue should be done with a complete record and evidence so that the court has the necessary material in front of it to engage in that type of constitutional review.
Judge William O'Neill reply:
There's really nothing unique about the Ohio Constitution, it mirrors the United States Constitution, and it mirrors the California Constitution. The Ohio General Assembly is more than capable of passing meaningful legislation, which will give us meaningful relief to an acknowledged problem. The difficulty is that the Ohio General Assembly without data, I challenge anyone to tell me there's been any data presented, without data continues to put a band-aid on an open wound. The problem is you have an insurance industry that is doubling your rates annually for the last three years and that's after the General Assembly passed so-called "tort reform". Caps don't work. Everyone knows that in this room. The issue is there has to be an overhaul of the entire system. And you know this isn't all that new. In 1921 manufacturers came to the General Assembly and said I'm going to go out of business if every time someone gets a splinter they keep getting to sue me. And that's how we got workers compensation in the state of Ohio. And they said maybe we ought to have a panel of experts look at the injury before suit can be filed. What's wrong with that? Am I advocating that? NO. I'm advocating that the Ohio General Assembly must do their job. And it's our job as a court to see that they don't violate people's constitutional rights in the process. There are 3 branches of government. We folks here are running for the independent Supreme Court. It is our job to see to it that the General Assembly does it's job, and I suggest to you as of today you are living proof they are not doing their job.
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger reply:
You're hearing different views about what interpreting the law actually means. We all know that the constitution is the measure by which the factions must be looked at. We have to view the differences, we have to meet the legislature for the reasons I described before, attempt to measure it, and look to see if there are portions of the statute that can be retained or if there is a problem in some other area. The Sheward decision was a case where the merits really were not reached. We certainly do not know how every single challenge that could be mounted by a group, because we all know attorneys are very creative, and there may be thoughts out there, portions of the constitution, which by the way are different from state to state. Very often they do match the US constitution, but they can be different because our state constitution is just that, as wording that is specific to Ohio. So when the attorneys make those arguments, it is up to the judges to listen very carefully to try to and absorb those arguments and then make a principled intellectually conscious decision, and then write it clearly so people understand why that decision was made the way it was.
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst reply:
Well after all that has been said I can simply say that judges are not legislators, indeed if I wanted to be one I would run for the legislator. On the other hand, the judiciary is not a rubber stamp for the legislature. If there is a conflict in law, if there is a controversy, which has developed on its way through the system from the trial courts through to the Supreme Court, we need to look to the constitution to make that determination when called upon to do that. Remember there is a right to a remedy; there is a right to redress, and also other protections that you and I enjoy pursuant to the United States and Ohio Constitution.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer reply:
I should say that I wrote the descent in the Sheward case because the court did not follow the rules, the procedure rules, for allowing a case to come to the court, which was a misuse of the court's power. The question referred to the one issue rule. The Ohio Constitution does contain a provision that says that the General Assembly, except when it's adopting budgets, must confine its legislation to single issues, for the obvious reason. On the Supreme Court, I've participated in a number of cases in which we've held that the General Assembly violated that rule. It gets violated, I won't say frequently, but it's not uncommon for it to be violated; so as to bring that to the attention of the court. There is a difference, the United States constitution does not have that provision, and many state constitutions do not have it. But that was one reason, one basis upon which other tort reform acts has been declared unconstitutional. I heard representative Bill Seitz of Cincinnati, a lawyer from Cincinnati, give a talk about a month ago and he is attempting to get his colleagues in general assembly to confine and breakup the tort reform legislation into pieces so that it does not violate the one issue rule. That is a real issue.
Question 2: Our right to due process is guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions. In your experience, does this right guarantee a jury trial? Are there other means for resolving medical liability cases that could be more effective than a jury trial, for example, through alternative dispute resolution mechanisms such as mediation, arbitration and medical courts?
Judge Terrence O'Donnell reply:
Well the issue of whether or not there is a right to a jury trial is not really an issue or in contest because there is a right to that provision. However, if legislation is passed that would infringe that right then that is an issue that generally would be presented to our courts, and we are not in a position as members of the Supreme Court to comment on matters that are likely to come before our court. So this is a difficult matter for resolution. You'll also need to know that in matters interpreting the Ohio Constitution, the Ohio Supreme Court is the last word. And so the determination's made by the Ohio Supreme Court on something as important as this are so vital and so basic because it will only take a majority of the members of the Supreme Court of the State to bind every other judge, we have 65 appellate judges in the state, and between the municipal, county and common pleas, almost 650 trial judges. So the decision of 4 members of the Ohio Supreme Court on any issue like this will bind every trial judge and every judge in the state of Ohio. So this is an important issue, but it's one that I'm not comfortable commenting on.
Judge William O'Neill reply:
You must have been reading my mail because that's what I started talking about before, so let's talk about it again. No, the right to a jury trial in Ohio is not inviolate. There are exceptions, there are many areas where there is a wrong and you don't have a right to a jury trial. By way of analogy, what I stated before, in 1921 injured workers had the right to sue their employer if they were hurt on the job. The employers in 1921 much like the doctors in 2004 went to the Ohio General Assembly and they said here is the data-if this keeps up we're going to leave Ohio, we can't afford to stay here any longer. Identical situations-the injured workers were saying our rights to be compensated is absolute, it's guaranteed by the Ohio Constitution, and like the General Assembly said, let's look at the data, let's look at the problem, let's come up with a solution. Obviously that could be done in the medical malpractice field as well. Obviously you could have a screening mechanism to say, "look get the doctors, lawyers, the insurance companies and the housewives together, present your case to a panel. If the panel thinks it's actionable, go forward, if they think it's not actionable, maybe you go forward at your own peril." Maybe you pay the other sides' lawyer's fees. I'm not a legislator, I am a judge that passes constitutional muster, and it has been done in Ohio before. It takes a General Assembly that's willing to look at the problem rather than just respond to the symptoms.
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger reply:
We have seen the growth of alternate dispute resolution in the civil field in general. I would not want to say that I'm talking about how I would vote if the issue came in front of me, but I could see that if the proper statute was in effect that this also could be a big advantage to the issues we're talking about today. As I mentioned, the individual sued because of the statute of limitations, because the names were on the chart. If there was a way to weed the individuals out immediately, think of all the benefit that would be to people who have to mount legal defense costs simply to be told later on that summary judgment and after a trial was over that you should never have been named in the first place. It could certainly help narrow the issues at the very beginning; it could potentially assist the injured individual who is actually found to be in need of some compensation. That individual could get the funds quicker; insurance rates may come down and it could be more economical for everyone involved. There are a lot of advantages, but of course, we can't comment on things will come in front of us and I hope you all understand, my answer is in that context.
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst reply:
There's not much more to add, I agree with many of the aspects here of my colleagues. I can say though in my observation of the work that I'm doing right now on the bench that indeed that alternate dispute resolution tact is what many are doing. I think of that when I tell you that I haven't had a trial for a long time, because the parties are either going to a retired judge, or a very experienced lawyer to help sit down and mediate and work things out. I also see that good case management with the present system that we have, without all these screening processes. Good case management from your judges will help those who are named improperly, to be dismissed from the case as soon as possible. That requires, I think, attention from the judge. I know that I give that attention. I know that the parties appreciate that, to make sure that the discovery process moves quickly and expeditiously and to make sure that those who don't belong in the suit are out.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer reply:
I'm a strong believer in mediation. I was a leader in the country in offering mediation to parties who come to the adversary system that we have in this country, so mediation, as Judge Fuerst said, it does provide another way for these issues to be resolved. It seems to me that the evaluation panels that some states have adopted we have plaintiff lawyers and medical professionals on the panel, trying to decide which are really the cases that should go to trial or just stay in the system. The General Assembly HB215 of course had a chance to do that, and it did not. In fact, HB215 was just adopted as you know, and it treats some of the issues of medical malpractice. The legislators working with this asked us, and plaintiff lawyers, to give advice on what would be an appropriate rule making on behalf of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court adopts rules of evidence that say how our courts function, and the final legislation adopted requests the Supreme Court to adopt two rules. One is to require the complaint's file, the medical malpractice complaint's file that there be an affidavit attached from a medical person in that field in which the alleged malpractice occurred, saying there is probable cause and believe there is malpractice, and the other is to place a priority to our rule making authority, place a priority on malpractice cases on the civil dockets. We're working on those rules now - I don't know whether they'll be adopted but those are two areas in which we can perhaps provide some help if those two rules were adopted.
Judge C. Ellen Connally reply:
The problem with being last is that all the good comments are taken. I might point out that the due process clause, the 14th amendment adopted in 1868 was basically thrown in as an afterthought. So we don't pass legislation casually. I'd just like to say that the key to this whole issue is good case management. That the Supreme Court should do a better job of supervising judges so that these cases are handled in an expeditious manner, and these cases are weeded out thoroughly, that we do a good job of discovery. I agree with the other judges that I don't believe at this point that we can make a determination to this ultimate question as to give the right to trial by jury to the due process clause. That would be an issue that could possibly come before the Supreme Court. I believe that the key to this is good case management and getting cases resolved quickly.
Question 3: As you know, under common law in the U.S. all parties in a civil action pay their own attorney fees regardless of whether they win or lose. Loser pays, also referred to, as the "English Rule" because it is the predominant practice in England, requires the losing party to pay the winning parties attorney fees. What are your thoughts about implementing a loser pays system in Ohio?
Judge William O'Neill reply:
The argument that you hear concerning loser pays is that poor people will lose access to the courts. I personally am not overly impressed with that thought. Obviously we want to have the courts open to everyone. English Rule you know has like all other rules, the potential for abuse. I am starting to sound like a broken record, but at the risk of doing so I think maybe I'll hear my point for the 3rd time I say it. If the Ohio General Assembly would do their job there is an entire menu available to them to solve this problem. For example, you can go to a modified loser pay's, which makes a lot of sense to me, and everyone in this room would agree with. If you file a lawsuit and you name all the wrong people and there's one bad guy and bad guy only and 20 defendants, maybe we have to look at a panel looking at that lawsuit, and if the panel of doctors, lawyers and insurance executives say this is a frivolous lawsuit, if they say it's frivolous, but you may go forward if you like. Maybe that's what triggers loser pays at that point. From that point forward, once a panel of people who understand medicine and understand litigation, look at a frivolous suit, and go forward if you like, but it's going to cost you. I don't think that deprives anyone of their right and access to the courts. But once again, that would take a General Assembly who is willing to do their job.
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger reply:
This is the first question that I've heard that makes me a little bit uncomfortable because I want to make sure what you're asking. One of the things I am trying to do as I campaign is not answer any specific questions that I feel are issue questions. The reason is, I'm always uncomfortable if I were to say take a stand one way or the other, that someone could later on say look, Lanzinger said this in this particular environment so she can't be on the case because of that reason. So If I could pass this question I would appreciate it.
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst reply:
As Judge O'Neill answered the question, I was thinking, there are some cases where by statutes; attorney's fees are allowed to be recovered by certain parties. I suppose if you were to think about that, it might be a way to go. But again, the access to the courts is something that needs to be considered. I don't have any hard fast thoughts about this particular issue to be honest with you. But as I think of the solution of the problem for those on the medical side who are experiencing that increase in insurance premiums, it would seem to me, and not as a judge, but as I think about solving the problem, with the Physicians' Insurance Exchange (PIE) model which allows doctors to pool their money. I think that maybe this didn't work out because of other reasons. But maybe that's a good way to go because doctors and health care professionals know who is good and who is bad, they'd be able to ascertain the risk among those doctors maybe in a more equitable fashion. Also, perhaps there has to be some movement about adjusting premiums not to the fact that a party has been named, but to the final outcome in a case. In other words, there's no hard fast rule-the mere fact that one has been named, as a defendant in a case probably should depend on the outcome. So as I think of the problem in general, that's where I am.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer reply:
I don't have a philosophical objection to the English Rule. There doesn't seem to be much sentiment towards it in Ohio, very frankly, in the bar or in the judiciary. That doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I would say this, that the Supreme Court in a number of cases in which we have identified suits that have gotten to the Supreme Court, where we have identified those as being frivolous, we have been assessing costs against the loser against the frivolous parties, if you will, including attorneys fees. Frankly our hope is that the message goes down the system to trial judges to say to them it's alright to assess fees/costs against a person who you think has filed a lawsuit, either a suit or against individuals in the suit that are frivolous. I have some of the same reservations as Justice Lanzinger does in going too far in saying what we might do, because we may be presented with a case involving this issue.
Judge C. Ellen Connally reply:
Just as Justice Moyer said, we actually do have to limit the ability to have the loser pay and that ...had an opportunity a number of times to assess fees for lawyers who filed frivolous motions and frivolous things before the court. But I am reluctant to comment on this question. I think our system is working quite well, and "if it aint' broke don't fix it". I don't think that we are in a position to change the system we have been very well satisfied with.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell reply:
The question of who should pay for attorney's fees is not really at the center of the problem that you are all concerned with here this afternoon. This is an adjunct kind of a problem. It could be resolved with a legislative determination with legislation enacting that which the court, if the court had a philosophy of following the law, would enact and adopt and would follow. There really isn't any Supreme Court rule in place now that prevents it from happening. We've simply as the Chief indicated, followed our system, not the English system, but I have no objection one-way or the other. However, that would be determined by the legislature, would be in accordance with the matter come before our court, wee would just have to deal with as we do with all the rest of our cases.
Question 4: We have all heard the term "judicial philosophy" used in Ohio Supreme Court campaigns, discussed in terms of judicial restraint or judicial activism. What is your philosophy? How do you balance the role of the court with the roles of the other branches of government?
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger reply:
I think I spent most of my opening remarks talking about my judicial philosophy, and they have developed over the 19 years as a judge. I want to tell you why I feel that way. I do a lot of teaching. I teach at the National Judicial College, Ohio Judicial College, I've gone to Russia twice, so the idea of philosophy, or what judges are supposed to do--what is their role, is one that is very very important to me. Especially when someone first takes the bench. The idea is that it is important to be just, it is important to make sure that the right result is reached in a case, and there is that focus on outcome. If you're someone who believes in the more traditional views, you do believe in the separation of power-judges do not legislate, they interpret, and they don't write the law. That balance of power is so important otherwise you have an imbalance, and you can have chaotic decisions that cause problems for everyone down the road, which they have no notice of this "judge made law" coming down.
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst reply:
Well as I mentioned earlier, I know when I undertook to run for this seat. I did not undertake to run for the legislature. Indeed that would have been a lot easier job than running for Supreme Court. But I think want is important, and what people tell me as I've been moving around for 22 months, the thing that all people are concerned with about government is #1 fair treatment and that level playing field. No one, either you or any other lawyer coming in, or any other litigant or party or defendant wants to walk into a courtroom and walk into a brick wall knowing that a decision has already been made. It is anyone's nightmare to walk into a courtroom like that. Things may not go your way, you may not get the decision you'd like to get, but everyone needs to be heard and the judge needs to think about whatever the solution is and make that decision with thoughtfulness and with some well rounded background and some legal expertise. I think that's what people want in their judiciary. The word judicial activism often comes in when, I think comes into resolve, judges haven't made-not being able to pass on constitution muster in certain legislation because of some infirmity in one way or another. Either the language is over broad or too disparate treatment, so that when the judiciary does not approve of legislation, it is perceived to be judicial activism as well. NO court, No judge, at any level in this state should have any agenda except for the word of law.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer reply:
Alexander Hamilton was prophetic when he observed that the justice system in this country would hold us together-be the cement that would bring together civil society. I firmly believe that, I believe it passionately-the justice system is what holds us together as a civil society. Unlike some countries that don't need a justice system to do that. That means that we have to function-judges need to function pursuant to certain principles. And one of those principles is--you've heard it stated over and over here, is that we don't take upon ourselves the authority, or the opportunity to write the law the way we think the other branch of government should have written it. That's a strong principle. There are judges who believe otherwise. There are judges who do believe a court of last resort is the last place someone can go to get justice, and so they believe, and you can see it in their votes. It is a legitimate view, a minority view in the country; and not one based quite in principle I think is the one that says we're going to constrain our power and defer the General Assembly even when we think they're wrong. We have the opportunity, of course, to suggest to the General Assembly, and sometimes we do this in opinions: you know this is not a very good statute, you may want to look at this statute, and the general Assembly does, and they will change the statutes when they see that what they have done is not want they really wanted to do.
Judge C. Ellen Connally reply:
Well I think when you determine a persons' judicial philosophy you look at the person, you look at the judge and see what is their reputation, what kinds of decisions have they rendered. I think that Supreme Court judges are accused of being judicial activists by people who lost, who are not satisfied with the decision the court made. I feel in my 24 years as a trial judge I've had police officers, and defense lawyers who both liked me and thought I was a really good judge; people who were satisfied with decisions, people who came away from my court being satisfied with decisions. The judge has a lot of power as Justice Moyer said, you may not agree with the law, you may say to a defendant, I have to find you guilty because it's the law, I don't think this is a good law and I hope the legislature will change it, but we have to follow the law as it is given to us. But we certainly have the opportunity say what the law should be.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell reply:
The idea of advancing a philosophy for case decision-making can be summed up best in the concept and the term judicial integrity. What that encompasses is a fairness and a willingness to look impartially at all of the facts in a case, and apply the law to those facts. As our oath says " without regard to persons". That is the duty of a judge. You see judges don't have the liberty to change the law, or to apply their own conception of what they think it is or what they would like it to be. No-judges are obligated and it is their duty to follow the law as is written by the General Assembly, and that is the manner by which I have conducted judicial affairs for more than 24 years. Each case to be considered on it's own merit. No preconceived ideas about outcomes of any cases, because so much by doing so you tip the balance and become unfair or become partial or biased. Court should not have agendas. Courts should be willing to be open minded, to listen to both sides of every issue, to analyze and scholarly study the law and then come to a conclusion based on an analysis of how that law fits into those facts. This is the manner by which we impart order to our case decision-making and regulate our society. It is the reason why citizens follow the law, because we are a society that does in fact follow the law, and we follow the rule of law because we believe in our judiciary. That is the essence of judicial integrity.
Judge William O'Neill reply:
I agree with everything Justice O'Donnell said because he says it so eloquently, he is absolutely right, that is the law of Ohio, the law of the United States of America. But I believe where we part company is that it doesn't go far enough. If you go back to grade school, remember about the three independent branches of government, the checks and balances. Again, I guess I'm going to have to say it the 4th time. In 1999 our Supreme Court, which I admire, wrote the Sheward case and they said in this so-called tort reform action "it is wrong to try and balance a state-wide crisis on the shoulders of our most seriously injured citizens". They said that caps are unconstitutional--they are unconstitutional. The Ohio General Assembly well funded by the insurance industry, then passed so called "tort reform" and implemented caps in direct defiance of the Ohio Supreme Court-direct, open defiance of the Ohio Supreme Court. By way of analogy, 4 times this Supreme Court has told the Ohio General Assembly the way we fund our schools is unconstitutional, do they change it? No they do not. Because we have an out of control General Assembly. I'm running for the Supreme Court because it's an independent branch of government and someone has got to bring some relief to you folks who are suffering in this room. You are suffering a malpractice crisis-no one is coming to your rescue.
Question 5: In the opening comments, data was provided that showed that Cuyahoga County is in the throes of a severe medical liability crisis and our medical liability rates and jury awards are higher than anywhere else in the state. In fact, our rates and jury awards are more extreme than many other parts of the country. Why do you think that Cuyahoga County's rates and jury verdicts are higher and what do you believe could be done to alleviate the problem?
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst reply:
I have not had that experience in my particular courtroom, but I am one of 34 judges in the Common Pleas general division, which try these types of cases. I think the only case that I've seen any sizable award was a young woman-switched in a procedure, I think she was supposed to have some kind of a laparoscopy and she ended up having a tubal ligation, and there were damages there for about $125K, which were probably about right. But other than that I have not see that. I've seen cases settled in the millions, but the injury has been tough and the parties came to that agreement among themselves. So I have just not seen that. I am well aware though that, I have friends that are doctors and they are telling me about their premiums, so that is no secret. I don't know what the answer is. I know when we do have a verdict that is out of whack or it doesn't seem to be supported by the evidence there are ways we can add or subtract from, upon motion by the parties, add or subtract from the verdict. We also have the benefit of having our cases appealed. I used to think I'd be afraid of the court of appeals, but I'm not, because that way 3 other persons can look to see if something has gone wrong. So there are ways, if something is really gone out of whack, there are ways to remedy it.
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer reply:
I know from talking from many many medical professionals, that there is a problem in Cuyahoga County and Northeast Ohio. I have no idea why there's a difference...I'd have to speculate, so I don't have any idea why it's different here than other parts of the state. Other parts of the state also claim, I believe they relate similar incidents, but if rates are higher here, and jury awards are higher here than it is not for the Supreme Court to make a judgment whether that's right or wrong. So I don't have a remedy, I really don't know.
Judge C. Ellen Connally reply:
Let's look at the demographics of our area. We have the largest population; we have two of the largest hospitals, Cleveland Clinic and University Hospital. So we have certainly more hospitals. I was down in Harding County last week, they don't have a four-lane highway-so I'm sure they don't have the Cleveland Clinic. So we're going to get more cases where you have a large concentration of medical facilities. In addition to which we have a large minority population that doesn't have health care. These folks use the emergency room for their physician. So if you go into the emergency room having no prior information, you're subject to the doctor making a mistake. I can't blame the doctor. A large verdict several weeks ago or about a month ago, a young man was severely injured with birth trauma. His mother went to the emergency room, I don't think she had any prenatal care, and the doctor missed it, the boy was severely injured. I believe he was entitled to compensation. But the question is let's look at the demographics. Sure we have a high rate here because of what we have in our community.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell reply:
Well I am aware that there is a problem and that the rates are higher in Cuyahoga County, but I don't have anything to do with why or how. Actually this is not the question of something that will be controlled by or was this a preview of the duties to the office of being a member of the Ohio Supreme Court. We have nothing to do with setting insurance rates, actuarial tables or anything else. Our duties would be to simply consider the cases that would arise here-so I really don't have any comment about the issue.
Judge William O'Neill reply:
I think your question goes to the constitutional question that is going to come before our court. Ultimately, in order to solve the acknowledged medical malpractice crisis in Ohio there is going to be an alteration of individual rights. That's the only way the crisis is ever going to be solved. And on a constitutional basis, you can only alter the rights of an individual if there is a rational basis for the alteration. If you're taking away a right there must be a societal interest. You know it's the basic--you're not allowed to yell fire in the movie theatre, therefore your freedom of speech is going to be limited somewhat. Maybe, if we had actual empirical data and we could demonstrate doctors are leaving town and that access to health care is getting to critical levels where people are in danger of dying, maybe with that empirical date there would be a rational basis for limiting access to the courts and that again, I hate to say it for the 5th time, that would require the Ohio General Assembly coming together and saying insurance companies "what did you take in last year, what did you pay out". "Doctors, how did you discipline your own"? "Lawyers -how did you discipline your own?" There are 3 parties here, and until we get data I can't imagine how there can be a rational basis for limiting rights.
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger reply:
About 2 years ago in Lucas County there was a seminar about is there a medical malpractice crisis. And of course I learned about the situation from Northwest Ohio perspective. It wasn't until I became a candidate for the Supreme Court, went on the walking tour of the 88 counties that I realized what a serious condition existed here in Cuyahoga County. It opened my eyes, and I would agree that certainly as a justice, if I'm not in the field to do something, or create a political agenda to do something about it, but what the beauty of the elective process is that it is making me aware of the situation. It is giving me a foundation to understand issues that may come before the court at a later time. So I find it beneficial to go through processes such as this where I hear the input from people who have great concerns about issues affecting their organizations. Not only the medical community, there are certainly others within the state that are concerned as well. But this information is very valuable and I appreciate being able to get it from the elective process.
CLOSING COMMENTS:
Chief Justice Thomas Moyer:
I've been on the Supreme Court for 17 1/2 years. I have a record that sort of trails behind me like a wake behind a boat, and people can know what I'm about, what my philosophy is and I think that there's not a whole lot more for me to say except that as I indicated earlier, I have a strong passion for what our courts do for us as a civilized society and my record reflects that, both as a judge-adjudicator of cases and disputes-and that in our use of the resources we have in the Supreme Court to help the entire judicial system in Ohio. Thank you.
Judge C. Ellen Connally:
I've been a trial judge for 24 years. While as a trial judge I got a Masters in American History from Cleveland State University and am currently a PhD candidate at the University of Akron. My PhD is legal and historical ... I spent many nights in the law library to finish, studying very old legislation, back to Davis, the civil war. I'm a published historian. I believe that I bring the educational background and my years of experience in dealing with people problems in the state of Ohio to this office. I believe that I've had the experience in trial court, knowing the problems out there. I am an everyday working trial judge I can help with the system that works in our state. I believe that judges should work as hard and as diligently as the working people in the state of Ohio. They need to kick up another notch so that people don't have to go to court waiting to be delayed. When you go to the doctor's office you want that doctor to be there on time. When you go to court, that judge should be there on time, your case should be handled in a timely manner. We have judges with overage cases, nothing is done to them. When I'm the Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, when judges have overage cases they're going to answer to me. That's why I'd like your support to be the next Chief Justice of the Ohio Supreme Court.
Justice Terrence O'Donnell:
The importance of November 2nd is that the Supreme Court will be perhaps one of the highest offices state wide to be elected. Other than the senate race involving Senator Voinovich, the only races state wide to be elected are 3 seats from the Ohio Supreme Court. It is a privilege and an honor to serve on the OSC. Our court is an extremely collegial group and we exhibit classic group decision-making. The matters that come there are of great public interest to every citizen in Ohio. I would indicate to you I have worked hard over a career spanning 24 years in the judiciary to bring respect to case decisions and most importantly, most recently to instill public confidence in the decisions of the Ohio Supreme Court. This is done by adhering to a philosophy of following the law in accordance with the oath and the duties of judges throughout the state. This is why the decisions that are made by our court are given wide respect statewide and this is why the election on November 2nd is so important.
Judge William O'Neill:
One of the difficulties that we have in the election process is that we have a tendency to fall under umbrellas and labels; therefore, some would call it a waste of my time as a democratic former trial lawyer to talk to a bunch of doctors. But nothing could be further from the truth. Because I think if more organizations such as yours invited the candidates to come and openly express their views, that's where an enlightened electorate comes from. As an example, I'm just sitting here listening to the justices speak and I realize that 25 years ago, living out in Geneva Ohio I had a child born with defective hips. Her life was saved by University Hospital doctors and I spent a year of my life living at Ronald McDonald House. So when I'm out on the campaign trail traveling 2000 miles a week, people say are you anti -doctor or are you pro-trial lawyer, or are you pro-children or are you pro-adult. Nothing could be further from the truth. Thank you.
Judge Judith A. Lanzinger:
I have been endorsed by many organizations and I count among my endorsements the medical association and the hospital association in Ohio and I am very privileged and honored to be able to say that. The Ohio State Bar Association took a look at this race. There were 25 attorneys from all over the state who evaluated the candidates based on 8 non-political criteria. Those were 1) legal knowledge and ability 2) professional experience 3) judicial competence 4) integrity 5) diligence 6) health 7) personal responsibilities 8) public and community service. These members reviewed my record of 19 years as a judge, they checked documents, interviewed people who had been in my court, who had worked before me, and I was given the highest rating of "highly qualified". I'm very grateful to all of you being here listening as we've tried to introduce ourselves so that on Nov. 2nd you can make a very informed decision as to each of these races.
Judge Nancy A. Fuerst:
I'm Judge Nancy Fuerst running for the Ohio Supreme Court and I'm running because I am eager to serve in that important position in a way that will benefit all Ohioans, with that bundle of qualities that people have told me they want to see in their justices: strong legal credentials, well rounded life experiences, maturity, the ability to make independent decisions and take the heat for them, but most important the open mind to make sure that everyone that comes to the court is afforded that level playing field regardless of their race, creed, gender or economic status. I think I have earned a reputation of keeping that open mindedness and fairness in Cuyahoga County. For those of you who are here who know the reputation of the first family here, it is a long one. My dad Judge Norman Fuerst on the bench for 36 years, Gerald Fuerst was clerk of courts and his father before him. It is a tradition that I'm proud to be part of and I think I have contributed to. I'm very proud of the work I've done. I've received excellent ratings for those 5 bars that are here in Cuyahoga County, those who've practiced before me, the Cleveland Bar, the Cuyahoga County Bar, the Norman Miner Bar, The Cuyahoga County Defense Lawyers Association and the Ohio Women's Bar Association. I'm very proud of those ratings-those people know my work. As a wife, mother of 6, stepmother of 4, judge, I am concerned with the same issues that you are-health, education and jobs. As a judge and a law clerk I think I can bring that strong legal credential that you want to see in your judges.
End.
1 of 15