|
Home
|
Medical Malpractice and Tort Reform
Amendment three is on the ballot in Florida this year - it would severely restrict the amount of money an attorney can make in a tort lawsuit. I don't think this will solve the problem.I practiced law during the last flap over medical malpractice, and I think much of the present problem comes directly from those attempts at reform.
Back in the late 70s and early 80s we were in an economic downturn and the insurance companies were complaining about loss of profits and blaming lawsuits. At the time, a $50,000-$100,000 suit was a huge case. Also, at the time, the plaintiff had to sue for a specific amount of money. Let's say a plaintiff sued a doctor claiming $50,000 in damages - he demanded $50,000 in the complaint. The jury, if it first found the doctor negligent, was not allowed to award a higher verdict, so the lawsuit was capped, so to speak. At the same time, the plaintiffs were not able to inflate their demand because the jury would want to see proof of damages. If, for instance, the plaintiff claimed $50,000 in damages, but proved only $5,000, the defense would argue that the plaintiff was not injured but only after money, and the jury could well not award anything. And I saw just that happen. In the late 70s the insurance companies began to raise malpractice rates and recruited the doctors to seek legislative reform. It was very similar to now. The doctors claimed that the large damage awards were the result of newspapers printing the demand for damages. In the above example, the newspaper would print that Doctor X had been sued for $50,000, and, according to the doctors, that kind of publicity led to large damage awards. The doctors pushed the legislatures to pass bills that changed damage demands. Under the new laws, a plaintiff now sues for "an amount in excess of $15,000" - that's the Florida figure - other states vary. The result is that the sky is now the limit for jury awards (or demands at settlement conferences.) A plaintiff could sue for an amount in excess of $15,000 and be awarded $50-million. The only result of Amendment Three I can see is to price the most needy plaintiffs out of the market for legal representation. Plaintiff's attorneys advance large sums of money during litigation paying for experts, court reporters, doctors, sometimes even medicine, and if they are not able to recover those expenses, they won't accept the case. I don't have an answer, but we've proven once that reform just for the sake of reform is a bad idea. Let's don't do it again.
|
