Tort reform ruling is red meat for Missouri Republicans
Barb ShellyThe Missouri Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits may be good law, but it wasn’t great timing.
The decision will serve as red meat for Republicans and ultra-conservatives. (Which now are all but synonymous in Missouri.) They’ll use it against Gov. Jay Nixon, who is running for re-election with the help of big donations from trial attorneys. They’ll use it against Claire McCaskill, knocking her for refusing to just support “common sense” health care reform measures like “tort reform.” (Though the effectiveness of capping malpractice awards is questionable.)
Most of all, they’ll use it to drum up support for a November ballot proposition which gives the Missouri governor a bigger role in selecting Supreme Court and appeals judges. *Just look at what those activist Supreme Court judges, handpicked by the trial attorneys, have done now. *(Their argument, not mine.)
Republicans are vowing to pass legislation this session reinstating the caps, which would no doubt result in a new round of legal challenges.
Medical malpractice reform is a tricky issue. Doctors shouldn’t have to practice under constant threat of having their practices and their reputations ruined by a lawsuit. On the other hand, negligence and incompetence can have devastating consequences for patients.
The Affordable Care Act offers states grant money to embark on efforts to find alternatives to costly malpractice litigation. One idea is a certificate of merit program, which require experts to certify that a case has merit before it goes to trial. Another idea is health courts, in which a panel of medical experts would hear a case, rather than a jury.
If Missouri leaders really wanted to solve this problem, they would apply for one of those grants. But that would mean engaging with the dreaded “Obamacare” law, so they probably won’t.
Steven Fetter
66223
9 months, 3 weeks agoI am sure our politicians would be wise stewards, searching for truth, with that grant money.
I am also certain that appointment of these wise men/women would in no way take into consideration political affiliation, or say, one’s views on abortion.
If we are ever to control costs, the trial lawyers should have to take a haircut, just as we are asking doctors, hospitals, and insurance companies to do so.
Phil Cardarella
9 months, 3 weeks agoOr, Medical Malpractice could operate like Worker’s Compensation — where there is a trade-off that limits large recovery but does not require a costly determination of fault.
Problem is, the GOP ideas are all one-sided, meant to protect doctors and hospitals (and their insurance companies) without addressing the needs of the injured patient. Limiting the size of awards is really just a way to make it more difficult for an injured party to find a lawyer who will invest the time an money (sometimes very big money and lots of time) with no certainty of recovery. Under our present system the only way the lawyer gets paid is from the non-eonomic damages — which is what the Chamber & GOP would like to set below the potential COSTS of some suits!
Is the present system fair? Heck, no. But, making it more unfair to one side isn’t reform — just robbery.
George Hunsucker
Northland
9 months, 3 weeks agoLawyers will continue to want no caps since it allows their ambulance chasing activities to continue. Oh, to be a trial lawyer…. NOT
Tell me again why these lawyer-appointed judges are such a gooooooooooooooood idea????
Mark Hastert
9 months, 3 weeks agoLet’s try to remember that it’s injured victims (or the survivors of dead ones) that are suing, not the lawyers. Reforms may be needed but victims must be protected first.
Kent Mueller
9 months, 3 weeks agoI’ve read where trial lawyers do what they do for altruistic reasons. That may be true. However, if so, then perhaps they should consider compensation that includes 100% reimbursement of out of pocket expense and hourly fees for their time. To take a percentage of the entire settlement seems to rob the victims.
I participated in a large class action suit against a large bank back in the 80’s. It was bogus, but I went along to observe. Two years later I had about three feet of legal documents and a settlement check in the amount of $.01. It was pure extortion of the bank for the benefit of the trial lawyers involved. It obviously wasn’t about the shareholder victims.
To look for excessive compensation, one only needs to look who to buys the full covers and foldout pages of the Yellow Pages.
Michael Middleton
9 months, 3 weeks agoThe caps on general damages (i.e, pain and suffering awards) are an attorney’s trick that has been abused for far too long. In injury cases, there are three types of damages; “Special damages” or economic damages, which include things like medical expenses, lost wages, etc; “General damages” or pain and suffering, non-economic damages that are difficult to quantify, so lawyers are prone to inflate them out of proportion to arrive at a larger haul for themselves; and punitive damages, to punish those who engage in reckless or ridiculously incompetent negligence. There is no reason the general damages cap could have been left intact, and have gross negligence awards (for those rare doctors who cut off the wrong foot, or drop the baby on its head, or whatever), be liberalized for truly heinous cases. But no, now all medical practitionrs have to pay, and as medical consumers, we’ll be paying right along with them.