October 28, 2025 • 30 mins
Constitutional law expert David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law, discusses President Trump’s hints at a third term. Healthcare attorney Harry Nelson, a partner at Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman, discusses the trial over Los Angeles Angels pitcher Tyler Skaggs’ death. June Grasso hosts.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
President Donald Trump has once again suggested he'd like to
extend his stay at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue for a
third term.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I would love to do it. I have my best numbers.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
Ever, it's very terrible. I have my best snubber.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Trump has frequently flirted with the idea of a third
term while saying he doesn't want to talk about it.
For example, in March, just a little over a month
into his second term, I want to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I'm just telling you.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
I have had more people say please run again. I said,
we have a long way to go before we even
think about that.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
They do say there's a way you can do it.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
But I don't know about that.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
But I have not looked into it.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
But this time. There are also those Trump twenty twenty
eight red baseball caps that sat on his desk during
a meeting with congressional leaders this month. There's the think
tank call called Third Term Project. And there is the
Justice Department lawyer who, during oral arguments at the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals referred to a new administration being
(01:10):
in place quote three years in the future or seven
years in the future. Joining me is constitutional law expert
David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law. So, David, I
reread the twenty second Amendment. It plainly states that no
one can be elected president more than twice. I mean,
how plain is it? How clear is it?
Speaker 3 (01:32):
It could not be clearer and it could not be plainer.
It's short, it's sweet, it's to the point, and they
are not allowing anyone to run for a third term.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Now, there are different kinds of scenarios out there that
Trump allies have put forward. One of the arguments is
that the twenty second Amendment only explicitly bars a person
from being elected to more than two presidential terms, but
doesn't say anything about serving a third term. So the
theory is that Trump could run as vice president and
(02:08):
then have whatever lucky candidate for president it is resign
and then Trump takes the White House.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
That doesn't work either, because of the twelfth Amendment, which
says that any candidate for vice president must be constitutionally
qualified to serve as president, which mister Trump isn't.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
In fact, Trump himself sort of dismissed that he said
I'd be allowed to do that, but I think people
wouldn't like that. It's too cute. Also, didn't Vladimir Putin
sort of do something like that years ago where he
put a deputy in to serve in his place for
one term and then he took over.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
It's rather disappointing that this country is taking its political
lessons from Russia these days. But yes, what Putin did
was stepped down from being president for one term and
let a trusted ally of his serve as a figurehead
president while Putin ran things as Prime minister, then came
(03:12):
back and became president again. A few problems with that.
One is it's too cute. Two is we don't have
prime ministerships here, so there's no obvious alternate role for
Trump to go into to serve it. Three, Russia's limit
is on consecutive terms. The twenty second Amendment is a
limit on total terms. And four, why are we taking
(03:35):
our political lessons from Russia?
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And just explain to get rid of the twenty second Amendment?
What would it take?
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Repealing the twenty second Amendment would take a two thirds
vote from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three
quarters of the states, which is thirty eight states, so
you would need ratification from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Now I don't think those states are going to be
(04:01):
working very hard to get mister Trump a third term.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Another theory is that Trump could become the Speaker of
the House, which apparently posits that it's easy to be
elected Speaker of the House, and then if both the
president and vice president, who would have to be Trump
Ally's resign.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
I keep sending in my resume to be Speaker of
the House and nothing ever happens. I'm not sure what
the problem is in theory that could be said to
be valid. The Speaker of the House is elected, and
if the purpose of electing mister Trump speaker is to
make him president, I think there's an argument that that
(04:42):
would also violate the twenty second Amendment of the Contitution.
But it certainly puts a thumb in the eye of
popular intent. We had had a four term president, President Roosevelt.
The country across all political lines can included that that
was too much power for any individual to have, that
(05:04):
it resembled authoritarian countries too much, and we decided we
didn't want to do that anymore. And this is yet
again mister Trump and his allies disregarding the people's choice
through their constitution.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Have you heard any other theories of how he could
become president for a third term and then the other one.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
I guess it's very straightforward. Just do it and see
if anyone stops you. And this Supreme Court has been
willing to avoid a number of constitutional violations and most
obviously declining to consider or allow anyone else to consider
(05:47):
whether mister Trump was disqualified under the insurrection clause of
the fourteenth Amendment. He may just take the position that
he can run, he can do it, and he doesn't
think anyone will stop him.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I guess this is hopeful in a sense, because he's
still talking about running and having an election rather than
just staying in office.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Well, there has been talk in the past that he
might do something like what you're suggesting. He made some
comments about that in twenty twenty, which I hope were
not taken very seriously. Certainly didn't deserve to be taken
very seriously. But some of his supporters have suggested that
(06:32):
he could somehow declare some kind of a state of emergency.
Someone called it a sovereignty crisis and suspend elections on
that basis, there's no authority whatsoever in the Constitution for that,
So if he were to do that, he would effectively
be repudiating the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
And you think that the Supreme Court might not even
step in if he decides to run for a third term.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
No, I think they would. I think this Court is
hoping against hope that he won't force their hand by
doing something completely delegitimizing. But I don't believe that there
are five justices who have so totally lost faith in
the country that they would put up with that.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
I mean, it could be he's trolling the Democrats, he's
entertaining his base, he doesn't want to look like a
lame duck, or he just wants to continue to be
the center of attention with this speculation.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Yes, I think so. Presidents have often had a lot
of trouble in their second terms in office. President Reagan
was unstoppable in his first term and stumbled quite badly
in his second. President Bush was very strong in his
first and got the Great Recession and Hurricane Katrina in
(07:53):
the second. President Obama lost all kinds of esteem by
his second term, And I think President Trump does want
to follow that example and was.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
It President Reagan who suggested getting rid of the twenty
second Amendment.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
He did.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
I'm not sure how seriously. A number of presidents get
fond of the job and start thinking that the twenty
second Amendment is a bad idea, but I don't think
anyone took him very seriously or move very far with it,
in part because President Reagan was already quite a fan stage.
Of course, President Trump is much older.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
And Trump would be the oldest president in history by
the time he leaves office, assuming, of course, that he
leaves at the end of his second term. Trump has
already done so much to expand his presidential authority. It's
not even a year into his second term. He's used
the specter of emergencies to impose tariffs, to send the
(08:52):
military into democratic led cities, and to shoot at supposed
Venezuelan drug runners at see. Have you ever seen a
president in these circumstances of peacetime exercised so much power,
often using the military.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Now, there's nothing remotely close to this. Richard Dixon was accused,
with some justification of trying to build an imperial presidency,
but I can't think of anything that mister Nixon tried
to do that mister Trump hasn't done much more of
And I can think of many things that mister Trump
has done that mister Nixon never dreamed of doing. President
(09:31):
Lincoln used a great many powers during the Civil War,
some of which may have exceeded his constitutional authority, not
on the level of what we're seeing here.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
David, do you think that of the Supreme Court cases
coming up that are going to test presidential authority, is
the Tariff's case the most significant or is there another
one that's more significant.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
The Tariff's case is extremely significant because the Supreme Court
is filled with self defined textualists, and it's almost impossible
to find anything like the powers the President is claiming
in the text of the statute he is citing. So
(10:19):
the Court is going to have to either abandon any
pretense of textualism or limit the president's authority very dramatically.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
There.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
The other case that I'm watching very closely is the
case involving doctor Cook in the Federal Reserve, because the
Supreme Court basically told President Trump, you can fire anyone
except a Federal Reserve governor, and he turned around and
fired a Federal Reserve governor. If the Supreme Court is
willing to let him do that. Then they are effectively
(10:52):
allowing themselves to be humiliated by the President, and we
can't really expect much of them going forward.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Think of Trump saying he's going to attend the Supreme
Court oral arguments on the tariffs.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
I think oral arguments are fascinating and you think for
a good time. I think with most courts, when a
party seeks to pressure them, the court feels considerable pressure
to demonstrate its independence. If I were a lawyer at
the White House or Justice Department, I would beg him
not to do that.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
We will find out on November fifth whether he attends
the oral arguments or not. Thanks so much, David. That's
Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next on
the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll look at the wrongful death
trial of Los Angeles pitcher Tyler Skaggs. His wife and
parents are suing the Los Angeles Angels for more than
(11:50):
one hundred million dollars. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
to Bloomberg.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Tyler Skagg's taking them out for the Angels.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Tyler Skaggs a picture for the Los Angele Angelus Angels
was just twenty seven years old when he died of
a drug overdose while on the road with the team.
Three years later, Eric Kay, the former Angels communications director,
was convicted of supplying Skags with a counterfeit oxy codone
pill laced with fentanol. He was sentenced to twenty two
(12:20):
years in prison. Now, Skag's wife and his parents are
suing the Angels, claiming the team knew or should have known,
that Kay was supplying drugs to players. They're asking for
eighteen million dollars for Skag's lost earnings, as well as
compensation for the family's suffering and punitive damages. Here are
(12:41):
Skag's wife and mother after Kay's conviction.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
I miss Tyler so much. He was he was my
only son, and you know, I'm not going to be
a grandma. I'm not going to be able to hold
a grandchild, and those things are painful. I think about
that all the time.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I wonder sometimes ever be as happy as I was.
The Angels say that team officials didn't know Skaggs was
taking drugs, and that any drug activity involving him and
Kay happened on their own time. My guest is healthcare
attorney Harry Nelson, a partner at leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman.
(13:21):
He's the author of the book The United States of Opioids.
Harry Skaggs died in twenty nineteen, and the civil trial
has just started. Tell us about the family's claims and
the Los Angeles Angels defense.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
So, Tyler Skaggs died in twenty nineteen in the hotel
room on this baseball trip with Los Angeles Angels, and
his family, both his parents and his widow brought us
civil trials arguing that the Angels had a duty to
protect Tyler and that they breached that duty by allowing
this communications director or former communications director from the team
(14:00):
give the players access to drugs and essentially to fetch
them for players, and that the team should be held
liable for the death and for a significant amount of
lost earnings up to potentially at least two hundred million,
I think is an argument. And then the question is
really what the duty of the team, the baseball team,
(14:20):
it's agents and supervisors had to protect him from the
harm of drug use and access to a supplier of drugs.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Is the judge going to tell the jury what the
duty is. Who's going to decide what the duty is.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
Yeah, so the question of legal duty is a question
of law that a judge is going to have to
instruct the jury on. That will be part of the
jury instructions that stuff parties are going to make arguments on.
And the real question is, we know that teams have
a duty to protect players from foreseeable harm, and the
question is really whether the harm in this case of
(14:54):
drug use of access to suppliers was a foreseeable harm.
And then, of course the next question being whether the
team breached that duty by allowing k communications director access
to the players, by failing to supervise him, by failing
to intervene as the family allege as they did.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
What's the defense. What are the angels saying?
Speaker 5 (15:14):
The team's defense is that this is not something that
they knew or could have known about, that Tylers Skaggs
was a high performing player who appeared to be, you know,
appropriately acting as part of the team, that there was
no evidence of at risk behavior of sort of bad
conduct off the field or anything unsafe, and that they
(15:37):
behaved reasonably in the way that they acted, and that
they didn't have that responsibility to manage this problem or
the person who's really the focus of the allegations here.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yeah, it seems like the plaintiff's whole case is based
on this Eric Kay, who is sitting in prison with
a twenty two year sentence.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
Yeah, it really does. That's really the core argument, because
you know, it's very difficult to see how you know,
a sports team or any organization can manage behaviors that's
out of sight where there aren't warning signs, and even
you know, even the plane iff witnesses. Steve Trout, the
legendary player who testified this past week, said that there
was nothing that he saw in Tyler Skaggs that was
(16:21):
any kind of bad behavior or a warning sign, And
everything seems to be hanging on Eric k and the
warning signs that there was something going on, and that,
by the way, is very interesting. Steve Trout testified that
there were a lot of unusual behaviors in Kay. It
was sort of almost like a gesture in the most
benign sense, but obviously was doing some really terrible things
(16:41):
in terms of functioning as a drug dealer or Tyler
and other players.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
During K's criminal trial, Skagg's wife said that she didn't
know about his drug use, so if she doesn't know
about his drug use, then how is the team supposed
to know?
Speaker 5 (16:55):
It's a fair question, right, Clearly, Tyler Scaggs was able
to keep his drug use from from people very close
to him and even his wife, So it is tricky
to know. And at the same time, you know, we
do in our society hold employers responsible for the behavior
of their employees. That's known, and so eric K, there
clearly were concerns there was something going on with him
(17:16):
that he himself was behaving in sort of disturbing ways.
So it's a tough call. I mean, I think it's
fair to say that the Angels, you know, could have
easily behaved reasonably and missed anything going on with Tyler's Staggs.
But clearly there was something unusual about eric K and
his behavior.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Now where does it fit in that there was evidence
that Skaggs used drugs when he was with the Diamondbacks,
and that again during Cay's criminal trial, his mother testified
that her son had an issue with oxy codone going
back to twenty thirteen. He wasn't prescribed opioids after undergoing
(17:57):
Tommy John's surgery in August twenty four because of that.
Speaker 5 (18:02):
That's also, yeah, another dimension the case, sort of player safety,
in terms of how much the team should have known.
The Angels are arguing, of course this Gags had this
prior drug problems in the past, that he was drinking heavily,
that he was getting killed from other places. But the
point is actually, I think a strong one that the
family is making here, which is that there was a
warning sign. You know, the team should have known because
(18:23):
this player, you know, players in general, are at risk
of so much physical and emotional mental strain in the
work that they're doing, that they're inherently at risk for
pains and for addiction, and that the team had a
duty to be more proactive in how it's monitored access
to the drugs themselves. So I think it's a really
interesting issue and it could have a profound impact on
(18:47):
how sports teams generally are monitoring risks around control substances,
not only how they screen employees and non players, but
also how they think about, you know, the risks associated
with game and with you know, its impact on players.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
How much responsibility does Skags have for his own behavior,
you know, knowing that he had these drug problems, etc.
Doesn't he have some responsibility as well.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
Look, I think that is kind of the tragedy of
you know, the opioid crisis writ large. Obviously, Skags was
taking enormous personal risk and really engaging in self destructive behavior.
And you know, that's the case essentially in a way,
that's that's every case of addiction. But we noticed it
(19:36):
just heres, particularly because this was such a supreme talent
so young, you know, lost as a result of it.
But I do think this really is a deep question
within the opiated crisis. The bottom line is, yes, the
people who are engaging in drug use have responsibility for
their conduct. But that's what we are, right and the
question is what do we do and where do we
(19:56):
lay down the duty of opposing safety be externally and
accountability externally because people like Tyler Skaggs are taking risks
that they simply should not be.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
So the cause of death and the angel's attorney brought
this out. The autopsy showed levels of xy codone, fentanyl,
and alcohol, and he said that Skags died due to
his reckless decision to mix large amounts of alcohol with narcotics.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
So clearly, you know, this is the classic example you
learn in the first year of law school about contributing factors. Right,
alcohol was clearly a contributing factor, although there's no evidence
that had Tyler Skaggs simply been drinking that night that
he would have died, So it was therefore not the
soul cause. So there has to be some breakdown. He
was hit some level of fentanyl, some level of oxycodon,
(20:47):
some level of alcohol that combined to cause him badly
to choke on his own vomit effectively under the three substances.
So you know, the role of alcohol as a contributing
factor some that definitely intoxicated him and made things worse
is something that the jury will and the judge will
have to take into acount what that role was. He
clearly made a choice to drink significantly that night, which
(21:11):
was part of the chain of causation here. But it's
pretty clear that had he not had the bentanyl lace
pills that Airk supplied, we wouldn't be where we are
and he wouldn't have died that night.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
So Eric Kay was convicted of supplying Skags with a
counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with phent and al. Since it
was counterfeit, does that mean that there were other harmful
ingredients besides those in the pills.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
Now, the pills here were fentanyl lace, they were counterfeited pills.
So essentially, you know, like so many people have died
in the in this crisis, it's clear that you know,
er k unwittingly gave counterfeit pills that were significantly fentanyl.
It appears that there was some mix of fentyl ox coota,
and it's not clear to me whether those were like
(22:00):
different pills. It's clear that Eric Kaye was like many people,
buying things that he thought were oxy codone and in
fact were you know, street based toxic sentinel that he
was delivering to tylish guys.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
When deciding on the damages related to Skaggs lost earnings,
he was in the starting lineup, but apparently struggling with injuries.
So how will each side approach this and how will
the jury make a final determination, because with the injuries
and the drug use, it might be hard to tell
(22:34):
how successful he would have been.
Speaker 5 (22:37):
The damages in these cases in case like this are
a combination of pain and suffering and lost earnings. And
as you're eluding, lost earnings is the big variable, you know,
potentially and then of course punitive damages. So you know,
my view of these cases is that even if the
jury holds the Angel responsible, which if I had to
make a bet here I would, I think is the
(22:58):
way this case will go, the jury will tell us
a lot by the amount of damages that they hold
the team responsible for, you know, the plain of star
hoping that the jury may you know, impose as much
as you know, a billion or half a million dollars
of damages when you had impunitives here. The highly specular part,
of course, is how far the lost earnings would go.
(23:19):
And it's anyone's guess how this jury is going to go.
I always look at these damage awards and think that
there's a largely emotional component in terms of how the jurors,
you know, how much anger and how strong of a
message they're trying to send to the team about this case.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with healthcare attorney
Harry Nelson. This seems like a case that could have
settled before trial. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
The wrongful death trial of Los Angeles Angels Pitcher Tyler
Skaggs comes more than six years after, he was found
(23:59):
dead in a bourbon Dallas hotel room where he was
staying as the Angels were supposed to open a four
game series against the Texas Rangers. A coroner's report said
that Skaggs choked to death on his vomit, and a
toxic mix of alcohol, fentanyl, and oxycodone was found in
his system. Eric Kaye was convicted in twenty twenty two
(24:20):
of providing Skags with a counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with fentanyl.
I've been talking to healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Leech
Tishman Nelson Hardiman. Harry, you think that the plaintiffs will
win here, so Skagg's wife and his parents. Why did
you come to that conclusion.
Speaker 5 (24:41):
I just think Tyler's widow, I think his family are
you deeply sympathetic? And I think this is a case.
As much as this problem of opioid overdose death is
a just profound national crisis, Tyler Skaggs has become uniquely
a symbol. And it does appear that the team you know,
(25:02):
was a part of the circumstances that led to it,
in terms of allowing someone like Eric kay into an
official team position. It wasn't just like he was part
of Tyler Skagg's entourage. And I think in general, when
you read the coverage, I do think that is a
unique problem that the angel stays here and that makes
this an uphill double for them.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I understand that you know the wife's suing. Is it
unusual to have the parents suing.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
No, A lot of these cases are initiated by parents.
You know. Unfortunately, in a crisis is affecting so many
young people, you have so many people who are unmarried
or who never had children, and so it's very common
to see the family doing I think the Tyler Skag's
family have been particularly articulate about this tragedy and that
have made it into a symbol. But unfortunately, I know
(25:48):
too many parents who are in the same position and
just looking somewhere for relief. And very few times can
you point to an organization like a professional baseball team
and say they're responsible. So many of these opioid overdose
deaths there's an anonymous drug dealer and nobody to actually
hold financially responsible. So that's another piece of this case.
(26:10):
It's very unusual.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Yeah, I was going to ask you whether you've seen
any other cases involving opioid deaths where the employer was responsible.
I guess baseball's kind of a different scenario.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
Professional sports are certainly, you know, unusual. We've seen it
also in healthcare. Actually, the thing about professional sports and
frankly sports at all, you know, at college level as well,
is that you have these medical operations around the team
that lead to a much higher level of access. We
of course see the same thing with celebrities who are
(26:43):
able to have you know, doctors at the ready, ready
to get them whatever they need, and we've seen so
many of those crises. Occasionally, we do see in the
healthcare system the fact that people's proximity allows them if
there isn't care taken around controlled substance access there too,
But that is a very unusual faster than this case,
and I think one of the reasons why it's forcing
(27:03):
us to confront these questions of duty in ways that
I think we'll ripple out and affect a lot more
of how people think about the responsibility to be watching
out and protecting people from this risk.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
This does seem like a case that should have settled
before trial.
Speaker 5 (27:19):
Yeah, you know, I can't speak to the negotiations here.
But I don't think that the team views it as
a success that this case went to trial. I do
know that there were offers, but the family I don't
know to what extent they decided to go to trials
simply to make sure that this case received attention and
to deal with the problem on a bigger level. But
clearly the exposure of the team again which people are
(27:43):
saying if the punitive damage is numbers were validated, could
go up to a billion or more dollars, is really
really substantial. So the fact that this case did not
settle earlier is not a good thing for the team.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Up to a billion. I know that some jury verdicts
have been just through the roof lately, but how do
they reach a billion dollars here from the one hundred
and eighteen million in lost earnings.
Speaker 5 (28:08):
No, that's with the punitive damage numbers that the planet's
lawyers have asked for. But I will not be surprised
to see this case have a nine figure settlement, meaning
hundreds of millions of dollars. So I think you know
the Angels are at risk. You can argue all you
want that Tyler Keag never would have you know rebounded
and been a great player. But I think when people
are looking at a young man with so much potential,
(28:30):
I think the natural tendency is going to be to
assume that the last earnings are real and to give
a substantial reward here, Harry.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Don't you think that jury's have been sort of giving
out judgments that reflect jackpot lottery winnings. Even in cases
involving a single plaintiff. Jury verdicts are just exploding.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
No, quite, Look, we see it in our cases that
we're handling. There's no question about this whole issue of
jury insulation and this trend of much higher award in
wrongful death cases and personal injury cases and corporate liability cases.
And I think it's a real problem because you know,
often organizations will think they have enough insurance to cover things,
and then the forces I think yours are just less
(29:14):
deferential to large organizations. We're living in a time when
people are, you know, more likely to distrust institutions, and
people are wanting to send messages, and nothing sends a
message in this context like a very large verdict. So
it's definitely a problematic trend. And you know, I'm finding
clients in much more mundane cases are encountering it just
(29:35):
because it's you know, it's like you think, you know
that standard whatever insurance policy that you have is going
to be enough. But if you get an aggressive planeflawyer
who is able to tell a story very effectively and
really emotionally moved yours, you could be looking at a
lot more exposure.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Well, the Supreme Court has set guidance that punitive damages
shouldn't exceed a nine to one ratio to compare damages,
so we shall see what happens here. Thanks for joining me, Harry.
That's Harry Nelson of Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman. He's the
author of the United States of Opioids. And that's it
(30:14):
for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
(30:35):
and you're listening to Bloomberg
This is Bloomberg Law with June Grosseo from Bloomberg Radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
President Donald Trump has once again suggested he'd like to
extend his stay at sixteen hundred Pennsylvania Avenue for a
third term.
Speaker 3 (00:18):
I would love to do it. I have my best numbers.
Speaker 4 (00:21):
Ever, it's very terrible. I have my best snubber.
Speaker 2 (00:23):
Trump has frequently flirted with the idea of a third
term while saying he doesn't want to talk about it.
For example, in March, just a little over a month
into his second term, I want to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I'm just telling you.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
I have had more people say please run again. I said,
we have a long way to go before we even
think about that.
Speaker 5 (00:44):
They do say there's a way you can do it.
Speaker 4 (00:46):
But I don't know about that.
Speaker 5 (00:47):
But I have not looked into it.
Speaker 2 (00:49):
But this time. There are also those Trump twenty twenty
eight red baseball caps that sat on his desk during
a meeting with congressional leaders this month. There's the think
tank call called Third Term Project. And there is the
Justice Department lawyer who, during oral arguments at the Sixth
Circuit Court of Appeals referred to a new administration being
(01:10):
in place quote three years in the future or seven
years in the future. Joining me is constitutional law expert
David Super, a professor at Georgetown Law. So, David, I
reread the twenty second Amendment. It plainly states that no
one can be elected president more than twice. I mean,
how plain is it? How clear is it?
Speaker 3 (01:32):
It could not be clearer and it could not be plainer.
It's short, it's sweet, it's to the point, and they
are not allowing anyone to run for a third term.
Speaker 2 (01:44):
Now, there are different kinds of scenarios out there that
Trump allies have put forward. One of the arguments is
that the twenty second Amendment only explicitly bars a person
from being elected to more than two presidential terms, but
doesn't say anything about serving a third term. So the
theory is that Trump could run as vice president and
(02:08):
then have whatever lucky candidate for president it is resign
and then Trump takes the White House.
Speaker 4 (02:15):
That doesn't work either, because of the twelfth Amendment, which
says that any candidate for vice president must be constitutionally
qualified to serve as president, which mister Trump isn't.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
In fact, Trump himself sort of dismissed that he said
I'd be allowed to do that, but I think people
wouldn't like that. It's too cute. Also, didn't Vladimir Putin
sort of do something like that years ago where he
put a deputy in to serve in his place for
one term and then he took over.
Speaker 4 (02:49):
It's rather disappointing that this country is taking its political
lessons from Russia these days. But yes, what Putin did
was stepped down from being president for one term and
let a trusted ally of his serve as a figurehead
president while Putin ran things as Prime minister, then came
(03:12):
back and became president again. A few problems with that.
One is it's too cute. Two is we don't have
prime ministerships here, so there's no obvious alternate role for
Trump to go into to serve it. Three, Russia's limit
is on consecutive terms. The twenty second Amendment is a
limit on total terms. And four, why are we taking
(03:35):
our political lessons from Russia?
Speaker 2 (03:37):
And just explain to get rid of the twenty second Amendment?
What would it take?
Speaker 4 (03:41):
Repealing the twenty second Amendment would take a two thirds
vote from both chambers of Congress and ratification by three
quarters of the states, which is thirty eight states, so
you would need ratification from states like Connecticut and Massachusetts.
Now I don't think those states are going to be
(04:01):
working very hard to get mister Trump a third term.
Speaker 2 (04:04):
Another theory is that Trump could become the Speaker of
the House, which apparently posits that it's easy to be
elected Speaker of the House, and then if both the
president and vice president, who would have to be Trump
Ally's resign.
Speaker 3 (04:20):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (04:20):
I keep sending in my resume to be Speaker of
the House and nothing ever happens. I'm not sure what
the problem is in theory that could be said to
be valid. The Speaker of the House is elected, and
if the purpose of electing mister Trump speaker is to
make him president, I think there's an argument that that
(04:42):
would also violate the twenty second Amendment of the Contitution.
But it certainly puts a thumb in the eye of
popular intent. We had had a four term president, President Roosevelt.
The country across all political lines can included that that
was too much power for any individual to have, that
(05:04):
it resembled authoritarian countries too much, and we decided we
didn't want to do that anymore. And this is yet
again mister Trump and his allies disregarding the people's choice
through their constitution.
Speaker 2 (05:20):
Have you heard any other theories of how he could
become president for a third term and then the other one.
Speaker 4 (05:25):
I guess it's very straightforward. Just do it and see
if anyone stops you. And this Supreme Court has been
willing to avoid a number of constitutional violations and most
obviously declining to consider or allow anyone else to consider
(05:47):
whether mister Trump was disqualified under the insurrection clause of
the fourteenth Amendment. He may just take the position that
he can run, he can do it, and he doesn't
think anyone will stop him.
Speaker 2 (06:00):
I guess this is hopeful in a sense, because he's
still talking about running and having an election rather than
just staying in office.
Speaker 4 (06:09):
Well, there has been talk in the past that he
might do something like what you're suggesting. He made some
comments about that in twenty twenty, which I hope were
not taken very seriously. Certainly didn't deserve to be taken
very seriously. But some of his supporters have suggested that
(06:32):
he could somehow declare some kind of a state of emergency.
Someone called it a sovereignty crisis and suspend elections on
that basis, there's no authority whatsoever in the Constitution for that,
So if he were to do that, he would effectively
be repudiating the Constitution.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
And you think that the Supreme Court might not even
step in if he decides to run for a third term.
Speaker 4 (06:58):
No, I think they would. I think this Court is
hoping against hope that he won't force their hand by
doing something completely delegitimizing. But I don't believe that there
are five justices who have so totally lost faith in
the country that they would put up with that.
Speaker 2 (07:17):
I mean, it could be he's trolling the Democrats, he's
entertaining his base, he doesn't want to look like a
lame duck, or he just wants to continue to be
the center of attention with this speculation.
Speaker 4 (07:30):
Yes, I think so. Presidents have often had a lot
of trouble in their second terms in office. President Reagan
was unstoppable in his first term and stumbled quite badly
in his second. President Bush was very strong in his
first and got the Great Recession and Hurricane Katrina in
(07:53):
the second. President Obama lost all kinds of esteem by
his second term, And I think President Trump does want
to follow that example and was.
Speaker 2 (08:03):
It President Reagan who suggested getting rid of the twenty
second Amendment.
Speaker 3 (08:08):
He did.
Speaker 4 (08:08):
I'm not sure how seriously. A number of presidents get
fond of the job and start thinking that the twenty
second Amendment is a bad idea, but I don't think
anyone took him very seriously or move very far with it,
in part because President Reagan was already quite a fan stage.
Of course, President Trump is much older.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
And Trump would be the oldest president in history by
the time he leaves office, assuming, of course, that he
leaves at the end of his second term. Trump has
already done so much to expand his presidential authority. It's
not even a year into his second term. He's used
the specter of emergencies to impose tariffs, to send the
(08:52):
military into democratic led cities, and to shoot at supposed
Venezuelan drug runners at see. Have you ever seen a
president in these circumstances of peacetime exercised so much power,
often using the military.
Speaker 4 (09:09):
Now, there's nothing remotely close to this. Richard Dixon was accused,
with some justification of trying to build an imperial presidency,
but I can't think of anything that mister Nixon tried
to do that mister Trump hasn't done much more of
And I can think of many things that mister Trump
has done that mister Nixon never dreamed of doing. President
(09:31):
Lincoln used a great many powers during the Civil War,
some of which may have exceeded his constitutional authority, not
on the level of what we're seeing here.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
David, do you think that of the Supreme Court cases
coming up that are going to test presidential authority, is
the Tariff's case the most significant or is there another
one that's more significant.
Speaker 4 (09:58):
The Tariff's case is extremely significant because the Supreme Court
is filled with self defined textualists, and it's almost impossible
to find anything like the powers the President is claiming
in the text of the statute he is citing. So
(10:19):
the Court is going to have to either abandon any
pretense of textualism or limit the president's authority very dramatically.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
There.
Speaker 4 (10:30):
The other case that I'm watching very closely is the
case involving doctor Cook in the Federal Reserve, because the
Supreme Court basically told President Trump, you can fire anyone
except a Federal Reserve governor, and he turned around and
fired a Federal Reserve governor. If the Supreme Court is
willing to let him do that. Then they are effectively
(10:52):
allowing themselves to be humiliated by the President, and we
can't really expect much of them going forward.
Speaker 2 (11:00):
Think of Trump saying he's going to attend the Supreme
Court oral arguments on the tariffs.
Speaker 4 (11:06):
I think oral arguments are fascinating and you think for
a good time. I think with most courts, when a
party seeks to pressure them, the court feels considerable pressure
to demonstrate its independence. If I were a lawyer at
the White House or Justice Department, I would beg him
not to do that.
Speaker 2 (11:27):
We will find out on November fifth whether he attends
the oral arguments or not. Thanks so much, David. That's
Professor David Super of Georgetown Law. Coming up next on
the Bloomberg Law Show, we'll look at the wrongful death
trial of Los Angeles pitcher Tyler Skaggs. His wife and
parents are suing the Los Angeles Angels for more than
(11:50):
one hundred million dollars. I'm June Grosso and you're listening
to Bloomberg.
Speaker 4 (11:54):
Tyler Skagg's taking them out for the Angels.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Tyler Skaggs a picture for the Los Angele Angelus Angels
was just twenty seven years old when he died of
a drug overdose while on the road with the team.
Three years later, Eric Kay, the former Angels communications director,
was convicted of supplying Skags with a counterfeit oxy codone
pill laced with fentanol. He was sentenced to twenty two
(12:20):
years in prison. Now, Skag's wife and his parents are
suing the Angels, claiming the team knew or should have known,
that Kay was supplying drugs to players. They're asking for
eighteen million dollars for Skag's lost earnings, as well as
compensation for the family's suffering and punitive damages. Here are
(12:41):
Skag's wife and mother after Kay's conviction.
Speaker 1 (12:45):
I miss Tyler so much. He was he was my
only son, and you know, I'm not going to be
a grandma. I'm not going to be able to hold
a grandchild, and those things are painful. I think about
that all the time.
Speaker 2 (12:58):
I wonder sometimes ever be as happy as I was.
The Angels say that team officials didn't know Skaggs was
taking drugs, and that any drug activity involving him and
Kay happened on their own time. My guest is healthcare
attorney Harry Nelson, a partner at leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman.
(13:21):
He's the author of the book The United States of Opioids.
Harry Skaggs died in twenty nineteen, and the civil trial
has just started. Tell us about the family's claims and
the Los Angeles Angels defense.
Speaker 5 (13:38):
So, Tyler Skaggs died in twenty nineteen in the hotel
room on this baseball trip with Los Angeles Angels, and
his family, both his parents and his widow brought us
civil trials arguing that the Angels had a duty to
protect Tyler and that they breached that duty by allowing
this communications director or former communications director from the team
(14:00):
give the players access to drugs and essentially to fetch
them for players, and that the team should be held
liable for the death and for a significant amount of
lost earnings up to potentially at least two hundred million,
I think is an argument. And then the question is
really what the duty of the team, the baseball team,
(14:20):
it's agents and supervisors had to protect him from the
harm of drug use and access to a supplier of drugs.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
Is the judge going to tell the jury what the
duty is. Who's going to decide what the duty is.
Speaker 5 (14:33):
Yeah, so the question of legal duty is a question
of law that a judge is going to have to
instruct the jury on. That will be part of the
jury instructions that stuff parties are going to make arguments on.
And the real question is, we know that teams have
a duty to protect players from foreseeable harm, and the
question is really whether the harm in this case of
(14:54):
drug use of access to suppliers was a foreseeable harm.
And then, of course the next question being whether the
team breached that duty by allowing k communications director access
to the players, by failing to supervise him, by failing
to intervene as the family allege as they did.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
What's the defense. What are the angels saying?
Speaker 5 (15:14):
The team's defense is that this is not something that
they knew or could have known about, that Tylers Skaggs
was a high performing player who appeared to be, you know,
appropriately acting as part of the team, that there was
no evidence of at risk behavior of sort of bad
conduct off the field or anything unsafe, and that they
(15:37):
behaved reasonably in the way that they acted, and that
they didn't have that responsibility to manage this problem or
the person who's really the focus of the allegations here.
Speaker 2 (15:48):
Yeah, it seems like the plaintiff's whole case is based
on this Eric Kay, who is sitting in prison with
a twenty two year sentence.
Speaker 5 (15:59):
Yeah, it really does. That's really the core argument, because
you know, it's very difficult to see how you know,
a sports team or any organization can manage behaviors that's
out of sight where there aren't warning signs, and even
you know, even the plane iff witnesses. Steve Trout, the
legendary player who testified this past week, said that there
was nothing that he saw in Tyler Skaggs that was
(16:21):
any kind of bad behavior or a warning sign, And
everything seems to be hanging on Eric k and the
warning signs that there was something going on, and that,
by the way, is very interesting. Steve Trout testified that
there were a lot of unusual behaviors in Kay. It
was sort of almost like a gesture in the most
benign sense, but obviously was doing some really terrible things
(16:41):
in terms of functioning as a drug dealer or Tyler
and other players.
Speaker 2 (16:45):
During K's criminal trial, Skagg's wife said that she didn't
know about his drug use, so if she doesn't know
about his drug use, then how is the team supposed
to know?
Speaker 5 (16:55):
It's a fair question, right, Clearly, Tyler Scaggs was able
to keep his drug use from from people very close
to him and even his wife, So it is tricky
to know. And at the same time, you know, we
do in our society hold employers responsible for the behavior
of their employees. That's known, and so eric K, there
clearly were concerns there was something going on with him
(17:16):
that he himself was behaving in sort of disturbing ways.
So it's a tough call. I mean, I think it's
fair to say that the Angels, you know, could have
easily behaved reasonably and missed anything going on with Tyler's Staggs.
But clearly there was something unusual about eric K and
his behavior.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
Now where does it fit in that there was evidence
that Skaggs used drugs when he was with the Diamondbacks,
and that again during Cay's criminal trial, his mother testified
that her son had an issue with oxy codone going
back to twenty thirteen. He wasn't prescribed opioids after undergoing
(17:57):
Tommy John's surgery in August twenty four because of that.
Speaker 5 (18:02):
That's also, yeah, another dimension the case, sort of player safety,
in terms of how much the team should have known.
The Angels are arguing, of course this Gags had this
prior drug problems in the past, that he was drinking heavily,
that he was getting killed from other places. But the
point is actually, I think a strong one that the
family is making here, which is that there was a
warning sign. You know, the team should have known because
(18:23):
this player, you know, players in general, are at risk
of so much physical and emotional mental strain in the
work that they're doing, that they're inherently at risk for
pains and for addiction, and that the team had a
duty to be more proactive in how it's monitored access
to the drugs themselves. So I think it's a really
interesting issue and it could have a profound impact on
(18:47):
how sports teams generally are monitoring risks around control substances,
not only how they screen employees and non players, but
also how they think about, you know, the risks associated
with game and with you know, its impact on players.
Speaker 2 (19:03):
How much responsibility does Skags have for his own behavior,
you know, knowing that he had these drug problems, etc.
Doesn't he have some responsibility as well.
Speaker 5 (19:15):
Look, I think that is kind of the tragedy of
you know, the opioid crisis writ large. Obviously, Skags was
taking enormous personal risk and really engaging in self destructive behavior.
And you know, that's the case essentially in a way,
that's that's every case of addiction. But we noticed it
(19:36):
just heres, particularly because this was such a supreme talent
so young, you know, lost as a result of it.
But I do think this really is a deep question
within the opiated crisis. The bottom line is, yes, the
people who are engaging in drug use have responsibility for
their conduct. But that's what we are, right and the
question is what do we do and where do we
(19:56):
lay down the duty of opposing safety be externally and
accountability externally because people like Tyler Skaggs are taking risks
that they simply should not be.
Speaker 2 (20:09):
So the cause of death and the angel's attorney brought
this out. The autopsy showed levels of xy codone, fentanyl,
and alcohol, and he said that Skags died due to
his reckless decision to mix large amounts of alcohol with narcotics.
Speaker 5 (20:27):
So clearly, you know, this is the classic example you
learn in the first year of law school about contributing factors. Right,
alcohol was clearly a contributing factor, although there's no evidence
that had Tyler Skaggs simply been drinking that night that
he would have died, So it was therefore not the
soul cause. So there has to be some breakdown. He
was hit some level of fentanyl, some level of oxycodon,
(20:47):
some level of alcohol that combined to cause him badly
to choke on his own vomit effectively under the three substances.
So you know, the role of alcohol as a contributing
factor some that definitely intoxicated him and made things worse
is something that the jury will and the judge will
have to take into acount what that role was. He
clearly made a choice to drink significantly that night, which
(21:11):
was part of the chain of causation here. But it's
pretty clear that had he not had the bentanyl lace
pills that Airk supplied, we wouldn't be where we are
and he wouldn't have died that night.
Speaker 2 (21:23):
So Eric Kay was convicted of supplying Skags with a
counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with phent and al. Since it
was counterfeit, does that mean that there were other harmful
ingredients besides those in the pills.
Speaker 5 (21:39):
Now, the pills here were fentanyl lace, they were counterfeited pills.
So essentially, you know, like so many people have died
in the in this crisis, it's clear that you know,
er k unwittingly gave counterfeit pills that were significantly fentanyl.
It appears that there was some mix of fentyl ox coota,
and it's not clear to me whether those were like
(22:00):
different pills. It's clear that Eric Kaye was like many people,
buying things that he thought were oxy codone and in
fact were you know, street based toxic sentinel that he
was delivering to tylish guys.
Speaker 2 (22:13):
When deciding on the damages related to Skaggs lost earnings,
he was in the starting lineup, but apparently struggling with injuries.
So how will each side approach this and how will
the jury make a final determination, because with the injuries
and the drug use, it might be hard to tell
(22:34):
how successful he would have been.
Speaker 5 (22:37):
The damages in these cases in case like this are
a combination of pain and suffering and lost earnings. And
as you're eluding, lost earnings is the big variable, you know,
potentially and then of course punitive damages. So you know,
my view of these cases is that even if the
jury holds the Angel responsible, which if I had to
make a bet here I would, I think is the
(22:58):
way this case will go, the jury will tell us
a lot by the amount of damages that they hold
the team responsible for, you know, the plain of star
hoping that the jury may you know, impose as much
as you know, a billion or half a million dollars
of damages when you had impunitives here. The highly specular part,
of course, is how far the lost earnings would go.
(23:19):
And it's anyone's guess how this jury is going to go.
I always look at these damage awards and think that
there's a largely emotional component in terms of how the jurors,
you know, how much anger and how strong of a
message they're trying to send to the team about this case.
Speaker 2 (23:36):
Coming up next, I'll continue this conversation with healthcare attorney
Harry Nelson. This seems like a case that could have
settled before trial. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg.
The wrongful death trial of Los Angeles Angels Pitcher Tyler
Skaggs comes more than six years after, he was found
(23:59):
dead in a bourbon Dallas hotel room where he was
staying as the Angels were supposed to open a four
game series against the Texas Rangers. A coroner's report said
that Skaggs choked to death on his vomit, and a
toxic mix of alcohol, fentanyl, and oxycodone was found in
his system. Eric Kaye was convicted in twenty twenty two
(24:20):
of providing Skags with a counterfeit oxycodone pill laced with fentanyl.
I've been talking to healthcare attorney Harry Nelson of Leech
Tishman Nelson Hardiman. Harry, you think that the plaintiffs will
win here, so Skagg's wife and his parents. Why did
you come to that conclusion.
Speaker 5 (24:41):
I just think Tyler's widow, I think his family are
you deeply sympathetic? And I think this is a case.
As much as this problem of opioid overdose death is
a just profound national crisis, Tyler Skaggs has become uniquely
a symbol. And it does appear that the team you know,
(25:02):
was a part of the circumstances that led to it,
in terms of allowing someone like Eric kay into an
official team position. It wasn't just like he was part
of Tyler Skagg's entourage. And I think in general, when
you read the coverage, I do think that is a
unique problem that the angel stays here and that makes
this an uphill double for them.
Speaker 2 (25:23):
I understand that you know the wife's suing. Is it
unusual to have the parents suing.
Speaker 5 (25:28):
No, A lot of these cases are initiated by parents.
You know. Unfortunately, in a crisis is affecting so many
young people, you have so many people who are unmarried
or who never had children, and so it's very common
to see the family doing I think the Tyler Skag's
family have been particularly articulate about this tragedy and that
have made it into a symbol. But unfortunately, I know
(25:48):
too many parents who are in the same position and
just looking somewhere for relief. And very few times can
you point to an organization like a professional baseball team
and say they're responsible. So many of these opioid overdose
deaths there's an anonymous drug dealer and nobody to actually
hold financially responsible. So that's another piece of this case.
(26:10):
It's very unusual.
Speaker 2 (26:11):
Yeah, I was going to ask you whether you've seen
any other cases involving opioid deaths where the employer was responsible.
I guess baseball's kind of a different scenario.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
Professional sports are certainly, you know, unusual. We've seen it
also in healthcare. Actually, the thing about professional sports and
frankly sports at all, you know, at college level as well,
is that you have these medical operations around the team
that lead to a much higher level of access. We
of course see the same thing with celebrities who are
(26:43):
able to have you know, doctors at the ready, ready
to get them whatever they need, and we've seen so
many of those crises. Occasionally, we do see in the
healthcare system the fact that people's proximity allows them if
there isn't care taken around controlled substance access there too,
But that is a very unusual faster than this case,
and I think one of the reasons why it's forcing
(27:03):
us to confront these questions of duty in ways that
I think we'll ripple out and affect a lot more
of how people think about the responsibility to be watching
out and protecting people from this risk.
Speaker 2 (27:15):
This does seem like a case that should have settled
before trial.
Speaker 5 (27:19):
Yeah, you know, I can't speak to the negotiations here.
But I don't think that the team views it as
a success that this case went to trial. I do
know that there were offers, but the family I don't
know to what extent they decided to go to trials
simply to make sure that this case received attention and
to deal with the problem on a bigger level. But
clearly the exposure of the team again which people are
(27:43):
saying if the punitive damage is numbers were validated, could
go up to a billion or more dollars, is really
really substantial. So the fact that this case did not
settle earlier is not a good thing for the team.
Speaker 2 (27:56):
Up to a billion. I know that some jury verdicts
have been just through the roof lately, but how do
they reach a billion dollars here from the one hundred
and eighteen million in lost earnings.
Speaker 5 (28:08):
No, that's with the punitive damage numbers that the planet's
lawyers have asked for. But I will not be surprised
to see this case have a nine figure settlement, meaning
hundreds of millions of dollars. So I think you know
the Angels are at risk. You can argue all you
want that Tyler Keag never would have you know rebounded
and been a great player. But I think when people
are looking at a young man with so much potential,
(28:30):
I think the natural tendency is going to be to
assume that the last earnings are real and to give
a substantial reward here, Harry.
Speaker 2 (28:39):
Don't you think that jury's have been sort of giving
out judgments that reflect jackpot lottery winnings. Even in cases
involving a single plaintiff. Jury verdicts are just exploding.
Speaker 5 (28:52):
No, quite, Look, we see it in our cases that
we're handling. There's no question about this whole issue of
jury insulation and this trend of much higher award in
wrongful death cases and personal injury cases and corporate liability cases.
And I think it's a real problem because you know,
often organizations will think they have enough insurance to cover things,
and then the forces I think yours are just less
(29:14):
deferential to large organizations. We're living in a time when
people are, you know, more likely to distrust institutions, and
people are wanting to send messages, and nothing sends a
message in this context like a very large verdict. So
it's definitely a problematic trend. And you know, I'm finding
clients in much more mundane cases are encountering it just
(29:35):
because it's you know, it's like you think, you know
that standard whatever insurance policy that you have is going
to be enough. But if you get an aggressive planeflawyer
who is able to tell a story very effectively and
really emotionally moved yours, you could be looking at a
lot more exposure.
Speaker 2 (29:51):
Well, the Supreme Court has set guidance that punitive damages
shouldn't exceed a nine to one ratio to compare damages,
so we shall see what happens here. Thanks for joining me, Harry.
That's Harry Nelson of Leech Tishman Nelson Hardiman. He's the
author of the United States of Opioids. And that's it
(30:14):
for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you
can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg
Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify,
and at www dot Bloomberg dot com, slash podcast Slash Law,
and remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every
weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso
(30:35):
and you're listening to Bloomberg
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.