Monday, April 20, 2015
The current cap in place for Maryland's municipalities is $200,000 per claim/$500,000 per incident. The House passed an increase to $300,000/$600,000 and the Senate passed an increase to $500,000/$1,000,000. Perhaps not surprisingly, a conference committee approved $400,000/$800,000 and that passed 89-45 in the House and 33-14 in the Senate. The bill also extends the filing period from 6 months to 1 year. HB 113 awaits the governor's signature. MarylandReporter.com has the story.
Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Late last month, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld the cap on damages for claims against local governments. The current cap is $200,000 per claim, with a maximum of $500,000 for any number of claims stemming from a single incident. The House passed a bill raising those limits to $300,000 and $600,000. Last week a Senate committee proposed raising the limits to $500,000 and $1,000,000. The full Senate will vote on Friday. Cecil Whig has the story.
Monday, April 13, 2015
On Thursday, Arizona Governor Ducey signed into law a bill requiring plaintiffs to disclose asbestos claims they have filed or intend to file. The legislation, referred to as a transparency law, is justified as necessary to keep plaintiffs from double-dipping from asbestos trusts. Today's News-Herald has the story.
In other asbestos news, the California Supreme Court will hear an appeal regarding the status of "take home" asbestos claims. The lower appellate court denied the claim. The Pacific Legal Foundation provides information on the case and argues against such claims here.
Thursday, April 2, 2015
On Monday, the Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a cap on damages against local governments. A jury awarded $11.5M to the family of a man shot to death by police, and the family argued the cap was unconstitutional. The court rejected the challenge; the family will receive $400,000. The Baltimore Sun has the story.
Monday, March 23, 2015
Sunday, March 15, 2015
On Thursday, I reported the Missouri Senate had given preliminary approval to med mal caps. Here is an update:
The Senate voted 28-2 on Thursday to approve a measure limiting awards for pain and suffering in most personal injury cases arising from botched medical procedures to $400,000.
In catastrophic injuries, the limit would be $700,000. The measure also raised the existing cap on wrongful death cases form $350,000 to $700,000.
The bill will have to be reconciled with the House bill, which is a single noneconomic damages cap of $350,000. The Kansas City Star has the story.
Thursday, March 12, 2015
Last week, I reported the Missouri House had given preliminary approval to a $350,000 noneconomic damages cap in med mal cases. The Senate has now given preliminary approval to a med mal noneconomic damages cap, but the details are different:
In most cases, a cap of $400,000 would apply. In more serious "catastrophic" injuries specifically defined in the bill — including paralysis, brain injury or a loss of vision — the cap would be $700,000. The bill also raises an existing $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in wrongful death cases to $700,000.
All three of these caps would increase each year by 1.7 percent under the bill.
AP has the story.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
A Tennessee circuit court judge ruled yesterday that the state's cap on noneconomic damages is unconstitutional, likely triggering review by the Tennessee Supreme Court. Unlike caps in many states, this one is not limited to medical malpractice cases. The Chattanooga Times Free Press has the story.
Friday, March 6, 2015
The Missouri House provided initial passage of a bill to reinstate a $350,000 non-economic damages cap in medical malpractice cases. One more vote is needed before the bill goes to the Senate. The bill received 101 votes, not the 109 it would need to override a veto. OzarksFirst.com has the story.
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
In Iowa, the medical community and trial lawyers have agreed to a voluntary early resolution program for medical malpractice cases; a Senate subcommittee has recommended passage. The bill's "Explanation" section provides:
This bill allows a physician, or a physician jointly with a health facility, to engage in an open, confidential discussion with a patient related to an adverse health care incident.
If an adverse health care incident occurs, the bill allows a physician, or a physician jointly with a health facility, to offer to engage in an open discussion with the patient. The notice of an offer to engage in an open discussion must be sent to the patient within 180 days after the adverse health care incident. If the patient agrees to proceed with an open discussion, the physician or health facility may investigate the adverse health care incident, disclose the results to the patient, and discuss steps the physician or health facility will take to prevent similar adverse health care incidents. The physician or health facility may also communicate to the patient that either the physician or health facility has determined that an offer of compensation is not warranted or that an offer of compensation is warranted. An offer of compensation may be conditioned upon the patient executing a release of future liability as to the adverse health care incident. All communications made under the Code chapter are privileged and confidential, are not subject to discovery, subpoena, or other means of legal compulsion for release, and are not admissible in evidence in a judicial, administrative, or arbitration proceeding.
The Gazette has the story.
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
Last year, Georgia debated becoming the first state in the country to reform med mal along the lines of workers comp. The bill failed. Sen. Brandon Beach is introducing a similar bill, Senate Bill 86:
Under the proposal, the new system will be governed by an 11-person panel consisting of physicians, attorneys, accountants and patient advocates. The board will set maximum injury compensation rates and approve medical review panelists.
Complaints will be handled by independent panels, comprised of representatives from practices or specialty areas similar to the provider. If a claim is found to have merit, the plaintiff will receive a monetary award to be determined by a compensation committee.
NeighborNewspapers.com has the story.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
The West Virginia Senate recently passed a bill reinstating the "open and obvious" doctrine in premises liability. In Illinois, a bill introduced in the House would go in the opposite direction, restricting consideration of open and obvious conditions to the trier of fact on the issue of comparative fault. Thus, a judge would not be able to consider open and obvious on the duty issue. The National Law Review has the story.
Monday, February 23, 2015
Current law in Indiana restricts medical providers from volunteering their services unless they have malpractice insurance. Similar to laws in several other states, House Bill 1145:
would establish a licensing procedure for both volunteers and locations at which medical services can be offered. Volunteers must sign a waiver and be working without compensation at a licensed facility in order for civil immunity to be applicable.
Exceptions to the malpractice immunity will be made in instances where gross negligence or willful misconduct has taken place or if a nonapproved procedure is performed by a volunteer.
Indiana Daily Student has the story.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
On Wednesday, on an 18-16 vote, the Senate defeated a punitive damages cap. On Thursday, on a 26-8 vote, the Senate passed a bill that capped damages at $500,000 or four times compensatory damages (up from 3x in the bill defeated a day earlier), whichever is greater. WV MetroNews has the story.
Thursday, February 19, 2015
West Virginia has been an extremely busy place for tort law this month. Yesterday the Senate declined to enact a punies cap of $500,000 or three times compensatory damages, whichever is greater. The vote was 18-16, with two Republicans joining the Democrats in opposition. WV MetroNews has the story.
Friday, February 13, 2015
The House Judiciary Committee approved a bill to extend West Virginia's $500,000 non-economic damages cap in med mal cases to nursing homes. The Senate has already passed the bill. WV Metro News has the story.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
In West Virginia, the Senate and House have passed different reforms regarding liability by multiple tortfeasors. Currently in West Virginia , if a defendant adjudged at fault can't pay its share of damages and another party was adjudged more than 30% responsible, the second party may be required to pay all the remaining damages. The Senate bill would still require other parties to pay for damages the insolvent entity can't cover, but the amount of damages required to be covered would depend on the amount the solvent party was adjudged at fault. The House bill moves to pure several liability in most cases. It will be interesting to see what comes out of conference committee. West Virginia Pubic Broadcasting has the story.
In 1976, the legislature in South Dakota enacted a $500,000 non-economic damages cap in medical malpractice cases; the cap was not indexed to inflation. The Tribune covers the cap with familiar arguments about access and fairness on one side and retaining physicians on the other. Nora Freeman Engstrom is quoted.
Friday, February 6, 2015
The Senate Health and Welfare Committee sent to the full Senate a bill creating three-member panels to review claims before they can go to court. The panel's findings would not be binding, but would be admissible in court. The Senate has passed this bill before, but it has not passed in the House. The Glasgow Daily Times has the story.
Update: The Senate passed the bill 24-12.
The bill is a bad idea because it adds more delay and transaction costs to an already lengthy and expensive process, without resolving anything. Studies conclude the average med mal claim lasts about 5 years from event to resolution, with more money being used to run the system than to compensate victims. Review panels increase the time to resolution by adding another layer of procedure. They also increase transaction costs as lawyers and experts for both sides try to convince an additional decision maker of the merits of their case.
To the extent reducing frivolous claims is the goal, a certificate of merit requirement would be preferable: it is quicker and less expensive. Moreover, reducing the length and adversarialism of the process should be the focus. Review panels were in place in Virginia when I practiced. Most plaintiff's lawyers simply didn't participate. The result was admissible at trial, but so was the information that the plaintiff was not involved in the panel's decision. The claim was delayed, but at least it was not also more expensive.