Posted on 07/09/2003 11:21:30 AM PDT by Brian S
Wed July 9, 2003 12:10 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Democrats on Wednesday killed a proposal to limit pain and suffering awards in medical malpractice lawsuits, an idea strongly backed by many U.S. physicians who say high malpractice insurance costs are driving them out of business.
Democrats used a procedural vote to kill the bill, championed by President Bush and approved by the House earlier this year. The Democrats said arbitrary $250,000 caps on pain and suffering might help insurers and drug makers but would not necessarily do much to help doctors or patients.
The bill would not have limited awards for economic damages, such as lost wages or medical costs. However, it would have put a $250,000 cap on awards for pain and suffering and also would have curtailed punitive damages.
Although Senate Republican leaders put the bill aside for now, it is possible that lawmakers will try to work out a compromise or alternative solution in the coming months.
However, some champions of the defeated bill said they would take it to the voters. Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum told reporters this week that Republicans pressed ahead with the vote knowing they would lose "so we can turn the heat up back home on senators who are not being responsive to the problems in their own states."
Both the House and Senate have voted on similar legislation over the years but the issue has taken on more political potency in recent months amid unusual protests and work stoppages by doctors in several states.
The influential American Medical Association has made the bill it a top priority.
Backers of the legislation say big jury awards and frivolous lawsuits are causing such steep increases in malpractice premiums that some doctors, particularly in high risk specialties like obstetrics and emergency medicine, are literally shutting their practices.
"This is about access to care," said Nevada Republican Sen. John Ensign, a lead sponsor of the bill.
And also *cough* Lindsey Graham *cough* and *cough* Richard Shelby *cough*.
Roll Call Vote #264
Well, no. Nobody is saying that people shouldn't be able to sue, or even that they shouldn't be allowed to collect actual, tangible damages and costs, just that vague, ephemeral "pain and suffering" should be limited to a quarter of a million dollars or so.
As you probably know, malpractice cases are taken on contigency bases, which means that if the plaintiff wins (either by a jury trial or an out-of-court settlement), the lawyer grabs 30-40% -- plus "expenses" -- of the award.
And as you're probably also aware, plaintiffs' lawyers don't take on cases based purely on the merits of the case, but on whether or not they believe they can win -- and win enough to make it worth the gamble of working on a contingency basis.
So, yes, poor, older people with few financial prospects in their futures generally *do* have to suck up their losses, so as not to affect the lawyers' lifestyles!
Of course that explains the medical malpractice crisis we had in NY back in the mid-80s...
So your husband or child is paralyzed by gross negligence. How far is that 250,000 pain and suffering going toward your loss? How about if you are left in pain for the rest of your life and you can't do any of the things you used to do, like sex etcetera. 250k cover that pain and suffering? I mean they paid you for the lost wages right? In other countries like Germany people can be jailed for extreme negligence. Not here. They walk away from it. Some doctors need to be sued out of existence.
There is no doubt there are problems and excesses with the legal system but this is not the way to fix it. An educated jury would be a start.
And yes insurance rates escalate during bad periods in the stock market. Even more so this time because a lot of investors didn't know what bonds were. Actuarial tables do not apply to their profits.
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.