Supreme Court defends its actions with rare statement

Wednesday, Sept. 22, 2004 | 11:07 a.m.

The state Supreme Court, which came under a blistering attack from Secretary of State Dean Heller, issued a rare statement in its own defense Tuesday.

The court passed on a request to find Heller in contempt of court, but through a spokesman, the court strongly defended its actions handling the state Trial Lawyers Association's lawsuit over an initiative that would change state medical malpractice laws.

"The Nevada Supreme Court's actions on the Question 3 issue show only a commitment to the law and the interests of the citizens of Nevada," court spokesman Bill Gang said in the statement. "The court's focus was to ensure there are truthful and accurate explanations on this particular ballot question so voters can make an informed choice.

"It is not in the interest of fairness, justice or democracy for misleading explanations of questions to appear on ballots."

Heller had blasted the court after justices released an opinion Saturday requiring the secretary to either pull Question 3 off the ballot or rewrite the explanation. Clark County had already started printing ballots and will have to start over at an estimated cost of $500,000.

Question 3 would further restrict the amount of pain-and-suffering damages that could be awarded in a medical malpractice case and it would limit attorney fees for those suing.

The state Trial Lawyers Association has been against the initiative.

Heller issued a statement Tuesday before the Supreme Court decision that said the court's ruling on Saturday "smacks of politics" and added that some members of the court are former trial lawyers.

He said "ambitious reporters and citizens" might check the campaign finance reports to show that campaign contributions come from the trial lawyers. The state Trial Lawyers Association sued to get the question thrown off the ballot.

"Actually, what all Nevadans should be stunned by is that members of our state Supreme Court would fall for the arguments put forth by the Trial Lawyers Association, but then again, a trial lawyer is a trial lawyer is a trial lawyer," he said.

Jim Crockett, a Las Vegas attorney and member of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said he was "astounded by the remarks" Heller made about the Supreme Court. He called the Heller comments "so far off base."

Heller suggested the seven-member court was composed of former trial lawyers. "Only one of the seven members (Justice Bob Rose) was a plaintiff trial lawyer. The judge (Chief Justice Miriam Shearing) who wrote the majority decision (ordering the language revised) was not a trial lawyer and her husband is a physician."

Crockett said Heller is supposed to be a referee in the battle between the two sides. In this case, he said the secretary of state allowed the proponents to provide "biased, inaccurate and a misleading summary of the law" in their arguments on the ballot.

In its statement, the court noted that it was responding to quotes attributed to Heller that appeared in newspaper articles. The court defended the speed at which it worked. The first ruling was issued four days after it was received, and Tuesday's decision came a day after the trial lawyers' request and the same day that Heller's office filed a response.

Supreme Court Clerk Janette Bloom said the court acted as quickly as possible to decide the case because of the time constraints with the ballot. She noted the unusual Saturday decision.

Gang said that "the allegation that the Supreme Court is 'openly hostile to the medical community' is simply absurd."

"The court's actions over the past few days made it possible for this issue to be on the November ballot," he said.