2020 Voter’s Guide

Civil Justice Reform Voter’s Guide (PDF)

Help End Lawsuit Abuse with the 2020 Election

This year, Pennsylvanians will elect 203 members of the state House and half (25 members) of the Senate. These elections stand to have long-term impact on Pennsylvania’s economy, health care, schools and businesses – including how our state responds to lawsuit abuse and the challenges of our current litigation climate. The outcome of these elections will not only influence short-term legislative goals but will have long-term impact as the state legislature starts the redistricting process following the 2020 census.


Pennsylvania’s Litigation Climate Impacts Everyone

Today, Pennsylvania ranks 39th in the nation for its litigation climate according to a survey by the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal Reform (ILR).

Many people don’t realize how much the litigation climate impacts everyday lives. The jobs we count on, the healthcare we receive, and the overall well-being of our communities are all impacted by the laws governing civil litigation. When frivolous lawsuits and a legislature that cozies up to plaintiffs’ attorneys are part of our state’s reputation and reality, there are serious costs for everyone.

Frivolous Lawsuits Have Serious Costs

According to another study by ILR the total cost of the “tort” or personal injury side of the court system in the United States is $429 billion, representing 2.3% of the gross national product. Pennsylvania’s civil tort system equates to $18.374 billion or 2.5% of the state’s gross domestic product. A full 44% of the cost of PA’s civil justice system is attributable to lawyers’ fees and other expenses, leaving injured people to recover only the remaining 56%. The cost of Pennsylvania’s civil court system amounts to $3,721.00 per household! That places our state just below the top ten for the highest tort costs per household in the nation. The cost of the civil court system is essentially an extra “tort tax” paid by every household in the state to prop up the inefficient delivery of civil justice.

Jobs are at Stake

As sobering as those figures are, the American Tort Reform Association (ATRA) declared Philadelphia the nation’s Number One Judicial Hellhole for 2020! ATRA cited a $8 billion “nuclear verdict” against Johnson & Johnson, as well as out-of-state plaintiffs—a.k.a. “litigation tourists”—flocking to sue in Philadelphia, among the top reasons to bestow this dubious distinction on our state’s largest city. The legal climate is a key economic factor in business location and expansion decisions. Being considered a “Judicial Hellhole” gives job creators another reason to invest elsewhere, resulting in fewer jobs for Pennsylvanians.

Health Care is Under Attack

Health care providers are also under constant attack in Pennsylvania’s courts. Pennsylvania has not passed medical malpractice reform since the 2002 MCARE Act (Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error Fund). Today, the protections from that act governing where lawsuits may be filed in medical liability cases are a target of the plaintiffs’ attorneys seeking more ways to sue in Philadelphia. Should they get their way, more lawsuits would be filed in Philadelphia for the sole purpose of bigger verdicts. As court decisions continue to erode medical malpractice protections passed in the early 2000s, we need legislators willing to address litigation reform.

Pandemic Heroes Need Protection

The global Covid-19 pandemic brings the threat of lawsuits into sharp focus. Plaintiffs’ attorneys are anxiously waiting for businesses to fully open so they can file suit, blaming them for the exposure and spread of COVID-19. While health care workers care for the sick and businesses seek to meet the need for personal protective equipment and other essential products and services, opportunistic lawyers are looking to make a quick buck off the suffering. Doctors, hospitals, long-term care facilities, and others in health care, need safe harbor liability protection from lawsuits resulting from the delivery of care during this unprecedented time. Those who have retooled their businesses to meet the demand for personal protection equipment deserve to be protected from lawsuits in support of their efforts. Employers must be protected from speculative claims of Covid-19 exposure in their places of business if Pennsylvania’s economy is to ever fully recover.

*This information is provided for educational purposes only and should not be interpreted as support or opposition to any legislative candidate.


What Makes a Good Legislative Candidate?

The Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform (PCCJR) considers several factors when reviewing the positions and qualifications of legislative candidates. Above all, our members want legislators who will enact laws that are fair, reasonable and balanced.

Job creators and Pennsylvania’s economy are damaged by policies that expand concepts of liability in ways that are unwarranted and lead to unexpected consequences. Laws that recognize the need for consistency in our courts, predictability in legal outcomes and an understanding that a certain amount of risk is inherent in any human activity will set the right climate for job growth, opportunity, and preservation of medical care. Legislative candidates should support laws that encourage restraint to prevent run-away liability costs and will bring about the stability needed to protect job opportunities and access to health care. We believe a candidate who values common sense and personal responsibility will make a good legislator.

*This information is provided for educational purposes only and should not be interpreted as support or opposition to any legislative candidate.


Candidate Questionnaire Responses

Open Seats

The PCCJR sent candidate questionnaires to all candidates running in open House and Senate seats across Pennsylvania. Those who responded and the links to their responses are found below.


PCCJR Candidate Questionnaire Guide

The PCCJR posed the following questions to candidates running for the Pennsylvania House and Senate in open seats:

1. Do you think Pennsylvania’s legal climate encourages the establishment of business in Pennsylvania, and their continued presence in the state?

The pro-civil litigation reform answer is “No.”

2. COVID-19 poses unique problems for health care and for both small and large businesses. They now face increased exposure to civil liability as a result of stepping up to fight the pandemic.

Do you think health care providers and businesses that follow safety guidelines issued by federal of state governments should have COVID-19 liability protection?

The pro-civil litigation reform answer is “Yes.”

3. Venue shopping is when plaintiffs’ attorneys file suit in a county (such as Philadelphia) known for high verdicts, even though the case has little or no connection to the county. Verdicts are known to be so high in Philadelphia that the American Tort Reform Association named Philadelphia its No. 1 “Judicial Hellhole” for 2020!

(a) Will you protect the current medical liability venue rule that allows cases to be filed only where the cause of action arose/injury occurred?

The pro-civil litigation reform answer is “Yes.”

(b) Would you support limiting venue for all civil cases in Pennsylvania to the county where the cause of action arose.

The pro-civil litigation reform answer is “Yes.”

4. A False Claims Act is legislation that encourages bounty hunters, known as “qui tam” plaintiffs, to sue on behalf of the government when they believe a business received government payments to which it is not entitled. A qui tam plaintiff keeps a significant portion, up to 30%, of any verdict.

Pennsylvania already recovers monies under the federal False Claims Act for any false Medicaid claims, yet plaintiffs’ lawyers are trying to enact a state False Claims Act that would divert even more money to the bounty hunting qui tam plaintiff and the attorney.

Do you believe Pennsylvania should have a state False Claims Act?

The pro-civil litigation reform answer is “No.”

5. From time to time, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania contracts with outside law firms to represent the Commonwealth in civil cases. These firms charge a contingency fee, sometimes more than 30%, for their services, and keeps that percentage of any money won in the lawsuit. Transparency in Private Attorney Contracting (TIPAC) legislation imposes reasonable limits on contingency fees, allowing the Commonwealth to keep control of the litigation and ensure that the taxpayers, as opposed to the lawyers, receive more benefit from a recovery of damages.

Will you support TIPAC legislation and limits on contingency fees in representations of the Commonwealth?

The pro-civil litigation reform answer is “Yes.”


PA Senate Incumbents – Civil Justice Reform Voter’s Guide

The PCCJR identified these votes of the 2018-2020 legislative session to be of crucial importance to our members and the advancement of civil justice reform in Pennsylvania. This guide and matrix track how the members who are on the ballot in the November 2020 ballot voted.

SB 936 – (Street Amendment)

The “Street Amendment” to SB 936 was the trial bar’s preferred version of SB 936. It would have gutted the bill and rendered it ineffective by eliminating the drug formulary. The amendment also contained insufficient language governing compounded medications. Certain workers’ comp benefits would have been expanded under the amendment.

The Street Amendment failed the Senate by a vote of 20 to 30.

The pro civil justice reform vote was “No.”

SB 936Creates prescription drug formulary for Workers’ Compensation.

A formulary would aid the commonwealth in fighting the opioid epidemic which heavily impacts injured workers. The goal is to restore the worker’s health and avoid dependence on dangerous opioid medication. In addition, a formulary would also address abuses in the system such as law firm owned pharmacies dispensing unproven compounded medications while charging exorbitant prices.

SB 936 passed the Senate by a vote of 34 – 16.

The pro civil litigation reform vote was “Yes”

HB 1840Legislative Response to Supreme Court Ruling in Protz v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

The PA Supreme Court in the Protz case struck down the ability for an employer to require an Impairment Rating Evaluation to determine a disabled employee’s continuing eligibility for benefits. HB 1840 addressed the issues raised by the Supreme Court to allow Impairment Rating Evaluations to continue.

HB 1840 PASSED by a vote of 34-15 on October 17, 2020

The pro civil justice reform vote was “Yes.”

SR 20: A resolution requiring the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to prepare a report on the impact of eliminating the current venue rule for medical liability cases.

The Supreme Court’s Civil Procedural Rules committee is reviewing a proposal that will return venue shopping in medical liability cases. The current rule only allows cases to be filed where the cause of action/injury occurred. Reverting to the prior broad venue rule would be detrimental to health care in Pennsylvania.

SR 20 PASSED by a vote of 31-18 on February 5, 2019

The pro civil justice reform vote was “Yes.”


PA Senate Incumbents
– How They Voted

PA Senate Incumbents| How they voted (PDF)


PA House Incumbents – Civil Justice Reform Voter’s Guide

The PCCJR identified these key votes to be of crucial importance to our members and the advancement of civil justice reform in Pennsylvania. This guide and matrix tracks how the members who are on the ballot in the November 2020 ballot voted.

HB 18Creates prescription drug formulary for Workers’ Compensation.

A formulary would aid the commonwealth in fighting the opioid epidemic which heavily impacts injured workers. The goal is to restore the worker’s health and avoid dependence on dangerous opioid medication. A formulary would also address abuses in the system such as law firm owned pharmacies dispensing unproven compounded medications while charging exorbitant prices.

When HB 18 was considered by the House, a Motion to Recommit to the Human Services Committee was made and passed. A “Yes” vote on the Motion to Recommit was a vote to kill the bill!

The pro civil litigation reform vote was “No”

SB 936 (2/6/18)Creates prescription drug formulary for Workers’ Compensation.

The Senate passed its own workers’ compensation prescription drug formulary bill in SB 936. A formulary would aid the commonwealth in fighting the opioid epidemic which heavily impacts injured workers. The goal is to restore the workers’ health and avoid dependence on dangerous opioid medication. In addition, a formulary would also address abuses in the system such as law firm owned pharmacies dispensing unproven compounded medications while charging exorbitant prices.

When SB 936 first came before the House, the result was a 98-98 tie vote. This was a defeat for the bill. A motion to reconsider was made and passed which allows a bill to be considered again at a later time.

The pro civil litigation reform vote was “Yes”

SB 936 (4/16/18)Creates prescription drug formulary for Workers’ Compensation.

SB 936 was called up on the floor of the House again for Final Passage after reconsideration. This time SB 936 passed the House by a vote of 101 – 92. However, the bill was vetoed by Governor Tom Wolf.

The pro civil litigation reform vote was “Yes”

HB 544Immunity for Recreational Land Use

This bill encourages landowners to make land and water areas open to the public for recreational purposes by limiting the owner’s liability to recreational users.

The pro civil litigation vote was “Yes”

HB 475 Increases minimum award for private actions under Unfair Trade Practices/Consumer Protection Act (UTP/CPA).

This bill increases the minimum amount of damages for claims under the UTP/CPA to $500 from its current amount of $100. This would increase the incentive to sue, especially since the act allows judges to triple the award of damages. Class actions under the statute would also increase due to the increased financial incentive.

This bill was reported from Consumer Affairs Committee, but did not come up for a vote by the full House.

The pro civil litigation reform vote in the Consumer Affairs committee was “No”

HB 1037Limits Punitive Damages for Long-Term Care.

HB 1037 provides a limitation on punitive damages that can be awarded against long-term care facilities such as nursing homes. Nursing homes are being targeted by out-of-state law firms because Pennsylvania does not limit punitive damages. In order to preserve the availability of community nursing homes for our elderly, steps must be taken to limit exposure to punitive damages. Merely pleading punitive damages can force a facility to settle out of fear of insolvency because punitive damages are not covered by insurance.

HB 1037 was defeated by a vote of 91 – 103.

The pro civil litigation reform vote was “Yes”

HB 1840Legislative Response to Supreme Court Ruling in Protz v. Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

The PA Supreme Court in the Protz case struck down the ability for an employer to require an Impairment Rating Evaluation to determine a disabled employee’s continuing eligibility for benefits. HB 1840 addressed the issues raised by the Supreme Court to allow Impairment Rating Evaluations to continue.

HB 1840 PASSED by a vote of 115-80, June 22, 2018.

The pro civil justice reform vote was “Yes.”


PA House Incumbents
– How They Voted

PA House Incumbents| How they voted (PDF)