The House passed a bill sets caps for medical malpractice awards, such as compensation for loss of a limb or sight, at $250,000. The bill also sets caps on punitive damages - those that punish a physician for serious mistakes - would be limited to twice the amount of economic damages awarded or $250,000, whichever is greater.
The bill faces an uncertain future in the Senate, where lawmakers from both parties have expressed concerns about the limits.
Democrats argue that caps will do little to combat rising premiums and will instead increase profits of the insurance companies.
President Bush, an advocate for setting caps for medical malpractice claims, celebrated the passage.
“Today’s House vote is an important step toward creating a liability system that fairly compensates those who are truly harmed, punishes egregious misconduct without driving good doctors out of medicine and improves access to quality affordable health care by reducing health care costs,” Bush said in a statement.
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said the measure was “an insurance giveaway bill.”
“This is not going to bring doctors into rural and urban America,” she said.
(via The Associated Press)
5 responses so far ↓
chriscatalano // Nov 2, 2003 at 10:42 am
We have lost a child because of a insurance company’s dishonesty concerning toxic mold. Fuck Bush, big business and the suck ass ,dipshit congressmen who vote for this shit.
Britne // Feb 2, 2004 at 6:57 am
i believe that chriscatalano should have been compinsated in some way, but the government has to do what’s good for all of us not just you…don’t be so selfish!
reanbean // Aug 3, 2004 at 5:35 pm
my daughter has gone completely deaf over misdiagnosed & undiagnosed serious ear problems many doctors did not realize what was hsppening to her after six years of a bacteria filled growth she now has no hearing so she will be very limited in her adult life as well as now no lawyers want to help
Helen Evans // Jul 21, 2005 at 11:00 am
Please consider my experience at at the hands of California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA).
Thank you,
“Chump change.” That is what he called my earnings from my tutoring business. Granted, $10,000 per year is not a lot financially, but for me, $10,000 dollars did not represent “big money” but “opportunities.” As a stay-at-home mom, I tutored on the side in order to provide my two boys with opportunities that would be otherwise unobtainable.
That money provided piano lessons, art lessons, math tutoring, fencing lessons, and a host of other “opportunities.” Didn’t he see that? Didn’t he see that my job was important not in bringing in income but in producing opportunities to enhance my boys’ lives?
In 1975 California passed the California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). This law’s purpose was to protect doctors and insurance companies from medical malpractice claims. In effect, it places a $250,000 limit on non-economic damages. Even our president, George W. Bush thinks it’s a good plan. But is it? What are its pitfalls? What are the dirty little secrets that have been swept under its carpet? MICRA places limits on damages for pain and suffering, but at a significant price. It essentially shuts the courthouse door to many seniors, low-income workers, stay-at-home moms, and parents of children who die due to negligence on the part of doctors.
Because our provable losses in income and medical expenses are not large enough to pursue for medical malpractice awards, we are victimized and without recourse. #It is extremely expensive to pursue medical malpractice lawsuits from a legal arena. The average cost to get to trial runs about $100,000. Most likely outcomes for settlement are only $150,000 with a contingency fee that is based on a sliding scale set by law.
Most lawyers are unable to help people in such circumstances because it’s economically unfeasible for them to pursue medical malpractice when there is limited economic damage. What does this mean? Well, for one thing, it means people like me are deemed unimportant in our society. It means that a doctor can be negligent and get away with it. It means that justice in terms of a jury trial are denied because you can’t tell your story.
When MICRA was signed into law, it was signed without inflation adjustments. California has never sought to rectify this severe oversight. In California, any attempts to add inflation adjustments to MICRA are dealt with brutally by the California doctors and insurance companies. Like dragons jealously guarding their lair, they slay any attempts to change MICRA. With that type of clout, it’s nearly impossible to repair this gross oversight.
Me? I was diagnosed with stage IIB breast cancer in 2004. This was after I had eight mammograms which were all reported to me as “normal.” Concerned about breast cancer, I had my first mammogram at the age of 30, my second one at age 37, and from the ages of 40 to 46 (my age at diagnosis) I had one every year. In every mammogram report (which I was not privy to) the radiologist observed that I had dense breasts which “may obscure tumors.” At least four years before my diagnosis, it was noted that there was an asymmetric area in my right breast. Was I offered an ultrasound? No, and worse yet, I didn’t even know I needed one. This asymmetrical area was the exact area where my tumor resided. It was as if each radiologist and my doctor saw a house on fire, and yet were unmotivated to report it. At the time of my diagnosis, I had three cancerous lymph nodes, two of them quite extensively involved.
Because of my limited income, MICRA has placed a “worth” button on me. Don’t you think doctors and insurance companies know where they can cut their health care costs? It will always be individuals who have limited economic recovery due to MICRA. The voiceless. This law must be exposed for what it is - bad. And when President Bush spouts off how great California’s MICRA law is - remember, he has the best medical care in the world. He has significant economic recovery chances - but do you?
Mary Ellen // Aug 6, 2005 at 8:01 pm
Dear Helen,
I my heartfelt sympathy goes out to you and your family. I volunteered to keep this type of legislation from passing in Florida over 15 years ago. Last year it was passed. The courts are the only recourse for individuals who are injured by others when they can’t be prosecuted criminally. You have been stripped of you right to redress in the courts. So many voters believed that reducing settlements in tort cases would reduce insurance premiums, but that simply isn’t true. Bad doctors drive up insurance premiums as well as the medical profession’s blatant refusal to police itself of doctors and others whose misconduct drive these lawsuits. The voters are uninformed and easily mislead by unscrupulous politicians. I am sorry. This injustice makes me want to go to law school.
sincerely,
Mary Ellen
You must log in to post a comment.