Posted by Mike Maier on October 25, 1999 at 14:22:25:
In Reply to: Re: Johansen v Saif posted by Terapin on October 16, 1999 at 10:36:00:
Your point is well taken. However, SAIF has been leading the charge to get Johansen reversed, citing cock-eyed figures like $10 million in additional liability due to no deadline on new condition reopenings. Mannix tried to get Johansen reversed in his original HB 3055, but Shiprack put a stop to it. I'm not in favor of Shiprack as co-chair for the new MLAC, but he served us well on that count. Shiprack is the kind of person who does the right thing when the pressure is on him.