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.
Post a Followup