Posted on 01/31/2006 6:12:27 AM PST by eartotheground
When Sen. Jim King took questions during a recent appearance at the Jacksonville Meninak Club, he could have been asked about anything. But tort reform was an issue that he knew would come up.
“I had a feeling I’d be asked about that one,” said King, after an audience member asked him what the state legislature would be doing this year on the issue.
The legislature and Florida’s Supreme Court are still wrestling with the implementation of three ballot initiatives passed in 2004 that affected medical malpractice torts. One limited lawyer fees in the cases, another made past malpractice information more available, while the third stripped licenses from doctors who commit repeated malpractice.
Those issues are still on the table. But King said the legislature will also take a look this year at limits on expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases and at joint and several rule reform.
The common law rule of joint and several liability makes each defendant in a tort lawsuit liable for the entire amount of plaintiff’s damages. The rule is sometimes called the “deep pocket” rule.
Both chambers of the legislature have already modified Florida’s approach to joint and several claims. A senate bill abolished the liability for non-economic damages in negligence suits, while a house bill applied a tiered approach to the damages pegged to degrees of liability.
King said some lawmakers are seeking to abolish joint and several damages. But King doesn’t think they have the votes to do it. However, further limits on the claims might be coming, he said.
King also sees problems with proposed legislation that would make expert witnesses in medical malpractice cases accountable to the Florida Medical Board.
The bill would require expert witnesses to be certified by the board. The witnesses could lose that certification if the FMB found that they had given false testimony.
“They could be stripped of their certification,” said King. “They’d be prevented from testifying again.”
King agrees with the concept of regulating who can take the stand as an expert witness.
“It seems like everyone has their own hired mouth,” he said.
But he doesn’t like the idea of making those witnesses answer to a board of doctors. Witnesses could be punished with loss of license just for testifying against the profession.
“I don’t see why they’d have a reason not to discredit a witness that testifies against the brotherhood,” he said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.