Amendment 3

michelle95 · Oct 27, 2004

What's your take?

AMENDMENT 3

Official Title: The Medical Liability Claimant's Compensation Amendment

Ballot Language: Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.

Financial Impact Statement: The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minimal. State agencies will incur some additional costs to comply with public records requirements of the amendment, but these costs will be generally offset by fees charged to the persons requesting the information.

All_Smiles_RN · Oct 28, 2004

I think it sounds like a good thing. If lawyers don't have such a huge financial incentive to take frivolous cases to trial, maybe it will reduce the number of them. I'm interested in how others view this ammendment.

...Jennifer...

All_Smiles_RN · Oct 28, 2004

I think it sounds like a good thing. If lawyers don't have such a huge financial incentive to take frivolous cases to trial, maybe it will reduce the number of them. I'm interested in how others view this ammendment.

...Jennifer...

michelle95 · Oct 28, 2004

I feel the same way.

But, the opposing commercials keep saying stuff like, "Insurance rates aren't going down because of this ammendment." I didn't think this ammendment was for insurance companies...but, to put more money in the patient's pocket if they have to sue.

Monica RN,BSN · Oct 29, 2004

I have to wonder what the political incentive would be to even institute this bill on the ballot. It seems like a good idea to give the "victim" suing higher compensation, and I am all for giving lawyers less money.. I have to wonder what kind of incentive that this has on the politic aspect, because governmnet rarely does anything for the "good of the people" unless there is something to politically gain in the first place.

What do you think about the bill on the ballot that a doctor who has been sued three times cannot practice in Florida?

Just my 2 cents worth....... :)

hypnotic_nurse · Oct 29, 2004

What do you think about the bill on the ballot that a doctor who has been sued three times cannot practice in Florida?

Is that really a bill??? If so, and it passes, Florida will have few docs, and every OB pt will get a C-section.

Monica RN,BSN · Oct 29, 2004

Maybe its not a bill.. maybe its an amendment I don't know... but I know its there for the vote.. I am sure it does not disqualify the doctor after three law suits, it says something more to the effect that if the doctor is found guilty of malpractice three times then they cannot practice in Florida.. anyone have a clarification on this?

caroladybelle, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2004

On amendment #3 - It limits the percentage of malpractice compensation that goes in the lawyer's pocket AFTER expenses are met. The trial lawyers are upset at it as they say that they won't get enough money to cover expenses ...a very obvious lie. It will probably curtail a number of frivolous suits ( of which there are many ). I gave it a big "Yes", after dealing with some of the utter timeconsuming BS that lawyers will do to draw things out.

The other Amendment (3 strikes and you are out), I am hinky on. It encourages people to settle out of Court rather than go to trial and benefits lawyers/lawsuits against MDs. While I am not a fan of anyone getting a license after three malpractice convictions, there are a whole lot of MDs out there that have paid plenty out of Court cases, or have no malpractice insurance, that will still be practicing without problem. The proposed amendment gives a false sence of security.

The anti-amendment #3 have great deal of misleading ads (Oh, my daughter's death would have never seen justice...yada yada.....my baby had cerebral palsy) out there. You note that no one ever says WHAT the daughter's surgery was????, why the little boy has CP?????? The CP ad for some reason was pulled...makes you wonder why.

PS. admittedly Florida has some of the worst Physician oversight/malpractice rates. But the aforementioned amendment is not the way to go. I was to undergo a cosmetic procedure recently. The number of deathes associated with it in Florida was over 60, compared to NY's 4 for the same year. I had it done in Manhattan. It was cheaper there too.

Monica RN,BSN · Oct 31, 2004

Very good points here...

quoting caroladybelle:

I gave it a big "Yes", after dealing with some of the utter timeconsuming BS that lawyers will do to draw things out.

The other Amendment (3 strikes and you are out), I am hinky on. It encourages people to settle out of Court rather than go to trial and benefits lawyers/lawsuits against MDs. While I am not a fan of anyone getting a license after three malpractice convictions, there are a whole lot of MDs out there that have paid plenty out of Court cases, or have no malpractice insurance, that will still be practicing without problem. The proposed amendment gives a false sence of security.

Well said... Yes for me too

wonderbee, BSN, RN · Oct 31, 2004

Is that really a bill??? If so, and it passes, Florida will have few docs, and every OB pt will get a C-section.

Do you mean actually have a judgment entered against them, or just have a suit filed against them? This is an extremely litigious state. We are losing our OBs and neuros.

I like the idea of the medical mediation panel we used to have in Dade county back in the 70s that was comprised of a doctor, a lawyer and a judge. Before a suit was permitted to be filed, a medical mediation panel met to decide whether there was enough evidence to warrant going the next step. That way the medical and legal communities were both served and frivolous lawsuits were cut down in their tracks before the expenses were incurred. There was a constitutionality issue that stopped this practice but I think it might be a good time to think of an amendment to bring the practice back.

On Amendment 3, if enacted, it may have the effect of attorneys turning away anything but ultra high dollar recoveries because of the contingency fee profit loss. I wouldn't want to see that happen either.

fry.girl · Nov 3, 2004

I have to wonder what the political incentive would be to even institute this bill on the ballot. It seems like a good idea to give the "victim" suing higher compensation, and I am all for giving lawyers less money.. I have to wonder what kind of incentive that this has on the politic aspect, because governmnet rarely does anything for the "good of the people" unless there is something to politically gain in the first place.
What do you think about the bill on the ballot that a doctor who has been sued three times cannot practice in Florida?
Just my 2 cents worth....... :)

I think the political incentive for Amendment 3 in the government's perspective is to reduce the number of suits being filed which I believe would eventually cause the cost of healthcare to decrease.

As far as the "3 stricks and you are out" question, this cannot be implemented fairly with the current situation that Amendment 3 is addressing. There are too many frivilous lawsuits out there and it is wrong to take a doctors license when he is at such a disadvantage. I believe this Amendment is the lawyers answer to Amendment 3..."O.K....you don't want us to have all the money, then we want the leverage to intimidate docs to settle out of court to protect his license for whatever amount we deem profitable."

Just my two cents.