HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 06041996 - SD3 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
FROM: Jim Rogers
DATE: May 24 , 1996
SUBJECT: Exploration of Possible Litigation Against Tobacco Companies for Health
Care Expenses incurred by County in the Provision of Health Care to
Indigents with Illnesses Related to Smoking
SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
DIRECT County Counsel to explore the feasibility of joining other
counties, including the City and County of San Francisco, in hiring
independent, outside counsel on a no-county-cost contingency fee
basis, to sue involved tobacco companies for reimbursement of
taxpayer-funded health care provided to indigent people with
maladies caused by and related to smoking.
BACKGROUND
Eight years ago, the voters of .California passed Proposition 99 ,
the initiative that taxed tobacco products to fund smoking
cessation and other programs . Recently, seven states sued the
tobacco companies for reimbursement of taxpayer-funded health care
related to smoking. The Attorney General of California has so far
declined to join in that litigation, even though the stakes in
California could total billions of dollars . This litigation
involves costs incurred by the states for the provision of medical
care for smoking related illnesses and does not involve any claims
which would be unique to -counties or other political subdivisions
of a state .
On May 17, 1996, the San Francisco Chronicle reported that the City
and County of San Francisco voted to move ahead with plans to sue
the tobacco industry for the city' s costs of providing medical
treatment to people with smoking-related illnesses . The Health,
Public Safety, and Environment Committee approved a resolution
directing the city attorney to file a class action lawsuit on
behalf of cities and counties all over the State of California.
The vote of the Committee was unanimous .
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SI ATTR
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON June 4, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED X OTHER X
APPROVED the recommendations as set forth above; and FURTHER ORDERED that the Health Services Director is DIRECTED to
coordinate with CountyyCounsel in providing a report to the Board in two weeks with a preliminary estimate of the costs
incurred by the County through theaprovision of health care/medical treatment for the smoking-related illnesses of the
County's indei:gent population.
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A
x UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ------------- TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN
AYES: NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF
SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
Contact: Kathleen Nimr ATTESTED June 4, 1996
cc: County Counsel PHIL BATCHE CLERK F
CAO HE BOARD F UPERV ORS
Health Services Dept . AND C AD I RATOR
In a major legal development, the Liggett Group recently broke
ranks with its counterparts in the tobacco industry and settled
five state reimbursement actions as well as a New Orleans-based
class action. Under this settlement, the maker of Chesterfield and
Eve cigarettes will pay $135 million immediately and up to $30
million annually for the next 25 years . The company also agreed to
set aside another $50 million to pay any other states that may file
lawsuits .
Whether or not the State of California joins in the litigation
against the tobacco companies, it would appear to be appropriate
for counties to pursue any possible claims for reimbursement of
their costs of providing medical services to indigents for smoking
related diseases . It is for that reason that this recommendation
is made .
It is my understanding that one or more private law firms may be
willing to pursue county indigent medical care costs on a
contingency fee basis, at no cost to the county. It is this
possiblity which needs to be explored by the County Counsel .
Bdord:a:\tobacco.lit