The House passes malpractice caps for the third straight year
“The bill, approved by a vote of 230-194, would cap awards for pain and suffering at $250,000. There would be no limit on economic damages, which provide reimbursement for such expenses as medical bills and lost wages. Finally, the bill would in many cases cap punitive damages at $250,000.”

Comments

Curious JD
I doubt many of you physicians know this, but these caps wouldn’t just cap damages in cases involving phycisians. It would be all “health care lawsuits”, with that term defined as:
“(7) HEALTH CARE LAWSUIT- The term `health care lawsuit’ means any health care liability claim concerning the provision of health care goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate commerce, or any health care liability action concerning the provision of health care goods or services or any medical product affecting interstate commerce, brought in a State or Federal court or pursuant to an alternative dispute resolution system, against a health care provider, a health care organization, or the manufacturer, distributor, supplier, marketer, promoter, or seller of a medical product, regardless of the theory of liability on which the claim is based, or the number of claimants, plaintiffs, defendants, or other parties, or the number of claims or causes of action, in which the claimant alleges a health care liability claim. Such term does not include a claim or action which is based on criminal liability; which seeks civil fines or penalties paid to Federal, State, or local government; or which is grounded in antitrust.”
So it includes “sellers of medical products”, HMOs, hospitals, or any “medical care provider”. What’s a medical product?
“(14) MEDICAL PRODUCT- The term `medical product’ means a drug, device, or biological product intended for humans, and the terms `drug’, `device’, and `biological product’ have the meanings given such terms in sections 201(g)(1) and 201(h) of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321) and section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262(a)), respectively, including any component or raw material used therein, but excluding health care services.”
Ahh, yes, caps for drug makers. Why else would the punitive cap be in there? That’s not a factor in med mal cases against physicians.
What other nice provisions are in there? Well, of course there are caps on what the plaintiff’s attorneys get but none for the defendant’s. But there is also a collateral source section, which means the defendants can put on evidence that one’s health insurance paid one’s bills. Which doesn’t sound too bad, until you read the next sentence which said that the health insurer then forfeits its right of subrogation. Tell me, do you think that helps the consumer keep their health insurance costs down?
Do you guys really support this bill?
chucky
Don’t know enough about it to know if I support it or not. What other intended and unintended consequences does it happen to contain?
But wow, looks like it empties a lot of cookie jars that you would like to get into.
Anonymous
Read it, it’s not hard to find. Or do you just support bills based on headlines?
You do realize that those cookie jars are the ones injured people reach into, don’t you? Or do you just figure anything that keeps people from being held liable for their actions has to be good for you? Until, of course, you’re the one injured by those actions/products.

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels

Subscribe

More in Uncategorized

Comments

Site

Channels