Our Congressman sues our government

[RecycleMichael]

By JIM MYERS World Washington Bureau
5/1/2007

The case, based on his injuries in a crash at the Capitol, was dismissed after the government accepted his workers comp claim.

WASHINGTON -- Rep. John Sullivan said Monday that he took the unusual step of suing the federal government because of a potential "lifetime of medical concerns" from injuries he suffered in a 2003 automobile accident on the Capitol grounds. A federal judge recently dismissed the Oklahoma Republican's 2005 lawsuit after the U.S. Department of Labor accepted his workers compensation claim.

Sullivan said Monday that he decided to sue first instead of filing a workers comp claim on the advice of his attorney and because he faces ongoing medical expenses not covered by his health insurance. "I am trying to anticipate how those costs will be covered," he said. "I am looking at all of my options. I have four children. I may not be in this job forever. What happens then?"

Sullivan suffered serious injuries in July 2003, when a car hurrying him to the Capitol for a vote hit a security barrier. He had been speaking at a private luncheon away from the Capitol. Driven by Sullivan's top aide, Elizabeth Bartheld, the car struck the barrier with enough force to activate its airbags, which caused most of Sullivan's injuries.

"I am blind in my left eye. It will never be any better," he said. Sullivan described a number of medical procedures performed on his eye, including the removal of its lens, and the costly glasses and lenses he now has to buy.

"It affects my reading, my depth perception," he said. "It has affected my other eye drastically. I get dizziness. I have nausea associated with it." Sullivan said he also has developed glaucoma. "I have to go to the doctor's office quite a bit, and they don't do it for free," he said. Sullivan has yet to receive any payment on his claim, he said. "I am not holding my breath," he said.

Sullivan's lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia initially named two Capitol Police officers as defendants along with the federal government. The officers were later dropped from the case.

Sullivan filed the workers comp claim at the suggestion of the U.S. Attorney's Office, which represented the government in the case. The Office of Workers Comp Programs accepted the claim in 2006. That essentially doomed Sullivan's lawsuit because courts do not review those claims.

Sullivan said his government health insurance has paid most but not all of the medical bills associated with his eye injury. Sullivan could not provide a specific figure for his out-of-pocket expenses, but he said the amount has been "thousands of dollars." Sullivan said he did not file a claim against his aide's automobile insurance.

Bartheld said the government paid for repairs to her car, but she could not recall the figure. She said she ended up buying a new car.
Bartheld suffered minor injuries in the accident but did not file a claim.

Sullivan's lawsuit and its dismissal was first reported by The Hill, a newspaper that covers Congress and the Capitol. It referred to Sullivan as a "tort reform crusader," citing his record of votes to reduce the number of legal challenges. Sullivan commented, "I don't know about that.

"I am against frivolous lawsuits. I think the courts are there for people that have legitimate claims, wrongful death or been maimed or something, and it is not their fault.
"They should have some recourse -- the courts."

Sullivan and his wife settled a lawsuit nearly two years ago that they filed after the death of an infant daughter in 2003.

[sgrizzle]

At least it sounded like there was no suit listed for anything outside medical bills.

[NellieBly]

I find it hard to believe that a US congressman does not have all medical expenses paid through insurance. It's good to know that he has trouble paying deductibles and co-pays. If he is blind in one eye, should he be driving his kids around?

[Conan71]

Several items of personal responsibility I'm not seeing here:

Don't plan such a tight schedule that your assistant has to "hurry" to get you to The Hill in time for a vote.

I don't think the government-owned barrier jumped out and hit said assistant's car.

pancakes??? Naming to capital guards as defendants?

Workers comp?  Coming from a private luncheon to work?

pancakes, John?!?

Sounds like topical lunch conversation today, eh RM?

[pmcalk]

Wow, his injuries sound serious.  Maybe he should resign.

[sgrizzle]

Dangit, I had lunch on my calendar and everything and I'm at work...

son of a ...

[rwarn17588]

Sounds like his aide was at fault for driving through the barrier. Why would he sue the security guards for this?

Typical GOP. They want tort reform for everyone but themselves.

[iplaw]

Can people who are for tort reform never sue even if it's legitimate?  

Also news to me was that tort reform was an attempt to completely bar civil litigation.  I mistakenly assumed that people who were for tort reform were taking a stand against frivolous litigation.  How silly of me.

[RecycleMichael]

Why did he not file a claim against his aide's insurance company? That seems to be the appropriate place for him to get his additional expenses.

She was driving, she has a wreck...what am I missing here?

What would be the reason you would not file against her insurance?

[swake]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Can people who are for tort reform never sue even if it's legitimate?  

Also news to me was that tort reform was an attempt to completely bar civil litigation.  I mistakenly assumed that people who were for tort reform were taking a stand against frivolous litigation.  How silly of me.

You have just passed into the world of parody.

This isn't a political issue and if there ever was a case of "frivolous litigation" this is it. I'm going to sue my employer because I got in an accident when I was late coming back from lunch? Right.......

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Why did he not file a claim against his aide's insurance company? That seems to be the appropriate place for him to get his additional expenses.

She was driving, she has a wreck...what am I missing here?

What would be the reason you would not file against her insurance?

It didn't matter in the end anyways, as his comp claim was approved.

[iplaw]

quote:
You have just passed into the world of parody.

This isn't a political issue and if there ever was a case of "frivolous litigation" this is it. I'm going to sue my employer because I got in an accident when I was late coming back from lunch? Right.......

I think the story quotes that he was coming back from delivering a speech at a luncheon.  If so, that clearly falls within his job duties and rightly becomes a workers comp case.  If so, there's nothing frivolous about it.  You should slow down and read more carefully...

[swake]

He had been speaking at a private luncheon

[iplaw]

Well, unless he was speaking to HIMSELF, I assume it still falls under his official job duties as a Representative.  The comp court will decide this issue on it's own though.  

Anyways, it's a bit hasty to be jumping the gun on the matter when no one has ruled on the merits.

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by recyclemichael

Why did he not file a claim against his aide's insurance company? That seems to be the appropriate place for him to get his additional expenses.

She was driving, she has a wreck...what am I missing here?

What would be the reason you would not file against her insurance?

I agree 100%!  That is what car insurance is for.  You have a one vehicle wreck with a fixed object and we are going to say it is someone else's fault?  Unless there is some malfunction with whatever she ran into, something is missing here.