The U.S. Senate is debating a bill that would put a $250,000 limit on pain-and-suffering awards for patients who successfully sue their obstetricians for botched deliveries or prenatal care. The bill would set no limit on economic damages.
Over-the-top pain-and-suffering awards contribute to the escalating cost of healthcare in two ways: raising the price of malpractice insurance to the point of driving many practitioners out of the market; defensive medicine, where doctors cover their tails by ordering more tests than are actually necessary (and sometimes these tests are themselves invasive and risky).
This has become a big issue in Washington's U.S. Senate race. Incumbent Patty Murray, a long time beneficiary of trial lawyer campaign contributions, opposes the bill on the grounds that it "discriminates against women". As if perpetuating a system that drives OB/Gyn doctors out of practice doesn't discriminate against women.
Congressman George Nethercutt, who is challenging Murray, wants to make health care more affordable by placing reasonable limits on the pain-and-suffering lottery. Meanwhile, the Trial Lawyer's Association has publicly commended Patty Murray for protecting their gravy train.
Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 24, 2004 09:29 AMIndeed, my wife goes to a gynecologist who gave up obstetrics because it was hazardous to her mental health. To a patient, a lawsuit is a lawsuit. To a physician, it is years of mental anguish and a threat to his/her future. Those who cannot stand the heat are getting out of the kitchen, which is not always in the public's best interest.
I wonder if there can ever be an answer to this debatable situation.
Posted by: Jed on February 24, 2004 09:55 AMStefan,
An award to you for finding the press release on the trial lawyers' thanks to Senators Patty and Cantwell for protecting their cash cow.
Posted by: Ron on February 24, 2004 10:23 AMI'm against the $250,000 cap.
1) It undermines the power of juries. Juries are a fundamental institution in our legal system.
2) $250,000 for pain and suffering is much too low for some harms. Would $250,000 adequately compensate you for having your penis chopped off? The pain of the injury, the indignity of having to pee sitting down for the rest of your life, never being able to have sex again... Or for those of us without penises, imagine the worst headache or back pain you've ever had. Now imagine having that for the rest of your life. $250,000 is just not adequate.
Posted by: Jacqueline on February 24, 2004 10:36 AMI wonder how much motivation the trial bar (which assures us that their pursuit of gigantic, crippling, economically unsustainable damage awards is motivated purely by interest in the social good) would have to sue if two simple reforms were enacted: 1. Loser pays 2. Punitive Damage awards, by law, were put into a public compensation fund... plaintiffs and their lawyers would be ineligible for proceeds from punitive damage awards.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on February 24, 2004 10:46 AMJacqueline - You can't have it both ways. If you want unlimited awards, then you have limited doctors.
Juries may be a fundamental institution, but how many times have they convicted innocent people, and let guilty people go?
How can a jury determine what is really the right award for an injury? The award they determine may be related to hatred, envy, or sympathy, rather than what should really be. Or it may be related to the chiarisma of the lawyer.
Posted by: Jed on February 24, 2004 12:04 PMMatt, I have had maybe the same idea. I would like to see lawyers monetarily liable for frivolous lawsuits. A doctor acquaintance of mine was sued because he did't attempt to sew back the head of a man decapitated by a wire while snowmobiling. The hospital settled for an amount less than it would have cost them to go to court, so the lawyer got paid! Currently, suing has almost no risk to the lawyer, and I believe it should. I would like to see the maximum amount a lawyer can earn for a suit to be limited. Lawyers make huge amounts of money when juries make 'gigantic, crippling, economically unsustainable damage awards.' Couldn't we at least limit that even if we don't want to limit what juries can award to injured parties?
Posted by: wilinsky on February 24, 2004 04:32 PMJed, you also have to mention the fact that trial lawyers get to pick their juries, and can exclude jurors who are likely to be economically responsible.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on February 25, 2004 05:03 AMMatt,
Pain and suffering damages are different from punitive damages.
Jed,
There are many other ways to increase the supply of health care than through limiting the power of juries to compensate people for harm suffered.
Jackie
I never said they were. Kindly direct your condescension somewhere else.
Posted by: Matt J Kurlander on February 25, 2004 09:44 AM"There are many other ways to increase the supply of health care than through limiting the power of juries to compensate people for harm suffered."
Such as......
If you will notice, my original post does not talk about caps, but about the toll taken by doctors just by the threat of lawsuits in general. I suspect the presence of caps would help.
Posted by: Jed on February 26, 2004 06:38 AMHere is a timely link to malpracice articles:
http://badpractice.blogspot.com
Posted by: Dan on February 25, 2005 09:02 AMI think limiting the amount of money awarded in a medical malpractice lawsuit is uncalled for. For people like me that went throw a simple everyday procedure and have to go throw 4 more surgeries because the the doctor messed up and I almost die from it. To me my life is worth more than 250,000.00, and on top of it all he has already been sued for malpractice. I think instead of the goverment worring about putting a cap on medical malpractice lawsuits they are to worry about the doctors. If the government was stricker on the doctors they would not have to worry about putting a cap on lawsuits. We need good doctors not more politics.
Posted by: Jennifer on June 16, 2005 08:24 PM