$250,000 cap on malpractice suits

Agnus · Apr 17, 2003

One arguement that I saw reguarding this was the case where the girl received the wrong heart and lungs due to an error in the blood type. The arguement was that a cap would hurt a family like this.

The bottom line is no amount of $$ will ever bring back this girl's life. To sue for a large sum in this case is blood money nothing else.

No malice was intended; all protochols were followed; The problems was in the system. Adequate checks were obviously not part of the protochols. Even this was not intentional and was human error. There is no way anyone can legitamentely acuse any member of the transplant team, the procurement people or anyone else of mal intent. Come on thier whole purpose is to perserve life.

An attorney argued to me that we are trying to take power from juries and put limits on thier decisions. We are in effect saying they are stupid. Well Mr. Attorney we do not give unlimited power to juries in criminal cases. We put restraints and very specific instrutions on them when deciding a crimininal case. There are maximum penalties that a jury can put on a criminal surely there should be a maximum when a wrong is committed without any criminal or malicious intent and where no crime has even been found to exist only a human error.

He said that we think juries are not smart enough and that is why we want to put these restraints. If juries are so smart why do they have to be restrained in convicting or sentensing a criminal?

I complimented on his wisdom in not presenting both sides of the arguement as he would have surly argued more effectively against his own position.

He stated that medical people would have no incentive to practice safely and ethically if there were not the threat of large suits. Everyone on this board should be insulted by such a low remark. Apparently he thinks lawyers are the only ethical moral professionals out there. The rest of us must be watched very closely and have a huge stick constantly held over our heads. We obviously do not nurse nor physicians practice medicine with any degree of honnor. We would kill and mame at the first opportunity.

tiger · Apr 17, 2003

The legislation -- which Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn signed into law Aug. 7 -- calls for many of the reforms that the American Medical Association has said are needed to help change states' medical liability climates. It places a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, creates a shorter statute of limitations and establishes a standard that holds physicians liable only for the damages for which they are responsible.

The law also puts a $50,000 limit on damages for hospitals and physicians who treat trauma patients, creates a medical error reporting system, requires more training for judges handling medical malpractice cases and holds lawyers responsible for costs of frivolous lawsuits.

"We have addressed the issues that brought the crisis," said Lawrence P. Matheis, the Nevada State Medical Assn. executive director. "It takes away the unpredictability of awards."

Nevada is one of 12 states the AMA has identified as being in the middle of a medical Liability Insurance crisis. Another 30 states and the District of Columbia are seeing signs of trouble, the AMA says.

i agree with the caps. it had gotten so bad here in nv that doctors were quitting left and right. the trauma center at my hospital closed for awhile due to this. expectant mothers could not find an obsetrician, they were all leaving. they are held responsible until the child turns 18. tort reform is needed.

Agnus · Apr 17, 2003

tiger, it was a NV lawyer whom argued to me that there was no relation between cost of liabilty insurance and the claims made against insurance companies. It was a NV lawyer who aruged that caps were unduely unfair and made the arguements that I previously mentioned.

I had the uncomfortable task to evaluate his delivery. I was not to debate his arguement but to evaluate only the delivery of it. I could not help saying that though I was prejudiced about the topic, I felt that although it is often best to present both sides to strengthen one's position that in this particular case it was what he did not say that made his arguement most effective. He apealed to our sense of "what this country was founded on" he used examples that involved modest awards by the court and were clearly not frivilous. He did not insult our intelligence by exagerating plaintiff losses.

However, I found him way off base when I considered what was not said. It was a good arguement, up to the point where he insulted the medical profession as being incapable of acting ethically without a lawyer and jury willing to impose unlimited restraint in acting against a physician.