Valley at epicenter of debate on malpractice caps

Houston Chronicle ^ | Aug 26, 2003 | James Pinkerton

[hocndoc]

From the article:

""A large portion of the lawsuits brought against doctors seldom result in a payment -- something like 85 percent result in a zero payment. So they are a factor," he said. ""

and

"""The rate of malpractice claims filed in the Valley is 211 percent above the statewide average, according to the state Insurance Department. And malpractice premiums for the Valley are the most expensive in the state -- and nearly the nation -- with a McAllen neurosurgeon paying $143,000 for full coverage while a colleague in Lubbock pays $67,818, according to the department.""

We had at least one teenager die last year, because there was no neurosurgeon on call at the Laredo ER. Hospitals can't qualify as "Trauma 1" centers if they can't sign up enough specialists to take call.

"Call" for an ER is the system where a doctor must be available, usually within 15 minutes to go to the hospital to see the patient. Most docs don't get paid for sticking close to the hospital. And, all too often, you don't get paid for the actual care, either. But, you are liable for malpractice suits if there is a "bad outcome," whether or not the outcome is your fault. I have a friend who is a radiologist who diagnosed a lethal complication by xray, as soon as he saw it, but was sued anyway, because the lawyers sue every doctor in sight when they sue.

The best thing that could happen is to make the lawyers pay legal fees for both sides when the courts rule against them, or when the lawsuit is dropped for lack of evidence. But, that's not part of Proposition 12. This amendment would support the Legislature's action to set limits on "pain and suffering" and "loss of consort" or "mental anquish" judgements to $250,000 per doctor and/or hosptital and limit the judgements to $750,000, total.

Proposition 12 will not affect the malpractice awards that are actually measureable, such as medical costs, lost wages, and even lawyer's fees. It will not affect punishment judgements, although I'll admit I don't understand that part, at all.

Proposition 12 will get rid of the emotional jackpot awards from which the lawyers skim 30% to 50%. (One idea was to limit the percentage that the lawyers could charge as contingency fees, but for some reason that didn't go through).

One objection of even some conservatives is the phrase, "and other actions." The complaint is that we will lose our right to have a jury decide punishment or that our legislators may be subject to corruption by the insurance agencies. (Senator Nixon is already under fire because an insurance company paid his claim for mold damages. The award sounds legitimate to me.)

Juries don't make the determination of punishment for criminal cases, they choose between punishments that have been set by the state legislature. The very definition of crimes and civil torts are made by the legislature. I don't see a problem with giving the legislature the power to set tort reform.

At least we have an input into who is in Austin, working on our behalf. Well, kinda.

[hocndoc]

ping
Sorry if I got you twice or if you're not interested.

[hocndoc]

This is the best they can come up with:

""The caps would trim huge awards such as the $59 million awarded to the parents of an Eagle Pass girl, severely brain-damaged because of malpractice by the doctor who delivered her. Only the $11 million in economic damages, to pay for caring for the girl the rest of her life and loss of future wages, and $750,000 in noneconomic damages would be awarded under the proposed caps, attorneys said.

"So they would have paid her medical bills, is that what's fair?" asked the girl's attorney, Mark Mueller of Austin. "There's nothing for what she has to go through. The point is the woman would have gotten nothing for her whole life being destroyed." ""

The parents were awarded $11 million for lost future wages and medical and other costs to care for the child PLUS $59 million for non economic damages. What is it about $59 million that will relieve emotional distress of caring for a child injured at birth? I'm afraid that the real relief will only be felt by the lawyers.

How much did the lawyers get? Why shouldn't the lawyers set a fee for their work instead of cashing in on contingency fees? (Or have it set for them in the same way workmans comp, Medicare and Medicaid, and the insurance companies have been allowed to do by government intervention.)

[txzman]

Although this is a very emotional issue to many, Tort Reform is required if our medical delivery system has any chance of remaining free and open.

The failure to fix it will result in a popular tide of voters demanding nationalized healthcare.

[Libertarianize the GOP]

Thanks for the ping. I added the keyword "Healthcare" as a catchall for related threads.

[.cnI redruM]

Because it's all about the lawyers. Having lawyers write laws is like having foxes guard the hen house.

[hocndoc]

Jackpot tort awards hurt us all.

Businesses and the State buy health insurance. But businesses and States don't pay the costs on their own - logically taxpayers and customers pay, as well as employees who theoretically could have taken home more in salaries.

And, less tangibly, we are losing good doctors to the cost of malpractice insurance and the hassles of being forced to spend so much time and energy on the business of medicine, rather than the art of medicine.
The costs add up all across the board.

[hocndoc]

Thank you for the Keyword. I didn't think of that one.

I'm surprised at how thorough this article is, even noting the objection to the "and other actions."

I know that the Texas Eagle Forum is actually against Proposition 12, and some doctors are unwilling to actually go on the record in favor, too.

I think it's a bandaid when we need surgery. But, all I've got is a band aid.

[ChewedGum]

Ok - so which vote puts caps in place? Voting YES on Proposition 12 or voting NO? (I'm thinking it's yes and I am in favor of liability caps - please correct me if I'm wrong!)

Gum

[San Jacinto]

I'm thinking it's yes and I am in favor of liability caps - please correct me if I'm wrong!)

You are not wrong. Voting "YES" on Prop 12 is a vote in FAVOR of liability caps.

[hocndoc]

Yes on 12!

[supercat]

How about passing a law excluding from contingency-fee calculations damages beyond certain levels?

[hocndoc]

Maybe in 2005.

The problem is that our law is set up so that some laws have to be passed as amendments to our State Constitution. Proposition 12 will prevent years of challenges to tort reform and the caps already passed. And, I think, would allow your suggestion to be passed by the legislature.

[FITZ]

How much did the lawyers get?

The lawyers want no caps on the kind of money from healthcare that lands in their pockets. Vote "Yes" to 12.

[CindyDawg]

I think the laywers ought to have to post a bond and if they lose the company/doctor gets compensation. This would encourage them to take it to court instead of settling.

[FITZ]

We've got some real bad ambulance chasing lawyers around here --- the border area of Texas --- and they deliberately prey on the Spanish speaking from Mexico trying to get lawsuits going --- real or not ---it doesn't matter. They convince the gullible they are just helping them, but they're driving away all our doctors ---- who already are not making much money just by being here.

[CindyDawg]

Tell me about it. The laywers are working overtime trying to file before Sept. It's not just medical either. It's also home and auto. Drive down 77 and look at all the bill boards. Most have out of the area addresses.

[hocndoc]

here's that thread.

I know of several suits that were settled just to end them, more where the doctor fought long enough to nearly ruin his life.

One of those which was settled, the plaintiff purjured herself in affadavits, against this doctor and the next one - where the patient did the very same thing - but the original doctor couldn't face the idea of going to the courthouse in our hometown and having the case all over the front page.

[BeerSwillr]

Thanks, I was on

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/972193/posts

So anyway, if 85% of malpractice cases are dismissed why do we need a Constituional amendment?

[hocndoc]

Because the suits must be defended in order to get them closed with no payment. Malpractice insurance has increased at least 24% per year for those of us lucky enough not to be hit. For others, the total in the last ten years has been 150%.

Because of the structure of the Texas Constitutional set up, the law that was passed for tort reform - HB 4 the Omnibus Tort Reform Bill of the 78th Legislature - is doomed to years of court challenges if the amendment is not passed.

I'd be glad to discuss this on the other thread. Just let me know which venue is better (and apt to be seen by more readers)