Secret settlements in lawsuits can be dangerous to public’s health
Secret settlements in civil lawsuits are legal and common. But the damage that results from such secrecy is significant. You or a member of your family could be victimized as a result. And, you wouldn’t ever know it.
As an example, if you knew that a certain brand or type of tires sold by a major manufacturer had been linked as the cause of car accidents which had injured, even killed, hundreds of people, would you buy those tires for your family car?
What about a specific type of prescription drug which had resulted in serious side effects and injury to hundreds of patients? Would you continue taking that drug, or give it to your children, if you knew it was potentially dangerous to do so?
If you knew a physician, surgeon or other medical specialists had a long history of mistakes and errors, which resulted in injuries to hundreds of his or her patients, would you willingly continue to allow this doctor to treat you and members of your family?
As long as settlements of lawsuits are allowed to be hidden with the official authority of the courts through secrecy agreements, you will never know about these cases. Information on incompetent, even dangerous, doctors, defective products, and hazards to the public, from chemicals in the water to faulty safety devices, can remain forever hidden from public disclosure through secrecy agreements.
Fortunately, the Pennsylvania courts have ruled that secrecy clauses in lawsuits involving public agencies, such as occurred several years ago when the Fayette County Housing Authority was sued by an ex-employee, are illegal.
The courts said when public tax money is involved the attorneys cannot demand that the person filing the suit not discuss the settlement in public as a requirement of the settlement. In the housing authority case, $50,000 in tax money was paid to a former employee who filed a lawsuit claiming her firing was not justified.
A federal district judge in South Carolina just recently voted to ban any further secrecy agreements in settlements of lawsuits. The judge said when the public’s health and safety are involved, the attorneys cannot demand secrecy as part of a settlement deal.
Pennsylvania courts should take a serious look at the South Carolina case. As we continue the debate over the issue of malpractice insurance, one element being overlooked is that secrecy agreements in lawsuits are protecting incompetent doctors. This has the effect of driving up the costs of malpractice insurance costs for competent physicians throughout the commonwealth.
Plaintiffs in these damage suits usually are willing to accept a secrecy requirement in order to receive a cash settlement. Some attorneys have acknowledged that they can use the element of secrecy as leverage to get a bigger or faster settlement.
After all, if a defendant in a civil suit knows the defective product or the act of incompetence will not be disclosed to the public, it’s motivation to settle the case for cash quickly. The public will never hear or see the details because no trial will be held.
Secrecy agreements only protect incompetence, defective products, and people and services that represent potential hazards to the rest of us.
Some people will argue that secrecy deals protect the reputations of competent, qualified professionals, in medicine or other fields.
Protect them from what? If they cannot prove their cases to a jury, why should the public be banned from hearing the details of the suit?
Secrecy agreements in any lawsuit, particularly those that involve the safety of our citizens, should be made illegal. The public should have the right to information that could directly affect their health and welfare.
As it stands now, secrecy agreements in lawsuit settlements could be leading us to make decisions regarding which products we buy and services we use that, if we had known the facts, we would never do.
Mike Ellis is the editor of the Herald-Standard. His e-mail address is: mellis@heraldstandard.com.