Your morning jolt: Georgia Supreme Court declares caps on malpractice lawsuits are unconstitutional
The Georgia Supreme Court announced today that, in a unanimous 7-0 ruling, it has found a state law limiting damages awarded for pain and suffering in medical malpractice lawsuits to be unconstitutional.
The cap on awards was the heart of the 2005 attempt at tort reform. Look for the ruling to restart Georgia’s own debate over health care and its costs in the Legislature.
Click here for the link to the decision. Here’s the summary:
In a decision written by Chief Justice Carol Hunstein, the high court has upheld a Fulton County judge’s ruling and found that the caps placed on so-called “noneconomic damages” violate a citizen’s constitutional right to a trial by jury.
“In sum, …we conclude that the noneconomic damages caps in [Official Code of Georgia] § 51-13-1 violate the right to a jury trial as guaranteed under the Georgia Constitution,” today’s opinion says.
The Georgia Legislature passed the law as part of its 2005 Tort Reform Act. As noted in today’s decision, “the damages caps were intended to help address what the General Assembly determined to be a ‘crisis affecting the provision and quality of health care services in this state.’” Specifically, the legislature found that the increasing cost of medical malpractice insurance threatened the availability of health care services for Georgia citizens.
Today’s decision stems from a lawsuit brought by Betty Nestlehutt and her husband against an Atlanta plastic surgery practice. In January 2006, Mrs. Nestlehutt, 71, went to Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery and consulted with Dr. Harvey “Chip” Cole regarding the bags under her eyes and lines around her mouth, according to briefs filed in the case. Cole subsequently performed a face-lift combined with carbon dioxide laser resurfacing. Initially, her healing seemed normal. But she soon developed a rash, followed by open wounds on her cheeks and temples. Eventually the wounds healed, but she was left with permanent scarring.
In April 2007, she and her husband sued the plastic surgery practice, also known as Oculus, alleging that Cole had been negligent. The jury returned a verdict of $1,265,000 for the Nestlehutts. However, that amount exceeded the maximum allowed under the 2005 law, which established limits on the amount of “noneconomic damages” that could be recovered. Such damages do not include medical expenses, or past and future earnings, but do include compensation for “pain and suffering.”
Under the law, the most one can get is $350,000 for claims against one or more medical practitioners, and a total of $1,050,000 for claims against multiple practitioners and medical facilities. Following the verdict, which exceeded the total allowed under the law, the Nestlehutts filed a motion to declare the state law unconstitutional. In February 2009, the trial court did that and awarded the Nestlehutts the full verdict. Oculus filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied, and Oculus then appealed to the state Supreme Court.
“The Georgia Constitution states plainly that ‘[t]he right to trial by jury shall remain inviolate,’” today’s 22-page opinion states. The very right to a trial by jury “includes the right to have a jury determine the amount of…damages, if any, awarded to the [plaintiff].”
The fact that the 2005 law permits full recovery of noneconomic damages “up to the significant amount of $350,000 cannot save the statute from constitutional attack,” the opinion says. “‘[I]f the legislature may constitutionally cap recovery at [$350,000], there is no discernible reason why it could not cap the recovery at some other figure, perhaps $50,000, or $1,000, or even $1.’ The very existence of the caps, in any amount, is violative of the right to trial by jury.”
The high court also rules that today’s decision applies retroactively to the Nestlehutts’ case and any other cases that are pending, including those that have not completed the appeals process. “‘The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute is wholly void and of no force and effect from the date it was enacted,’” the opinion says. “However, exceptions may be made to this general rule ‘where, because of the nature of the statute and its previous application, unjust results would accrue to those who justifiably relied on it.” This case, the Court holds, does not satisfy the criteria for such an exception.
Justice David Nahmias writes in a special concurrence that he agrees that the caps violate the constitutional right to a jury trial, and he agrees that the Court’s holding must be applied retroactively. But he disagrees that exceptions can be made to the rule of retroactivity.
“If selective retroactivity is in fact the ‘juristic philosophy of this State,’ I do not share it,” he writes. “I do not understand how we could declare a legislative act like [Official Code of Georgia] § 51-13-1 void, yet still allow that statute to be applied as good law in pending cases.” Justice Nahmias quotes Justice Antonin Scalia of the U.S. Supreme Court, who wrote in another case: “To hold a government Act to be unconstitutional is not to announce that we forbid it, but that the Constitution forbids it…Since the Constitution does not change from year to year; since it does not conform to our decisions, but our decisions are supposed to conform to it; the notion that our interpretation of the Constitution in a particular decision could take prospective form does not make sense.” Presiding Justice George Carley and Justice P. Harris Hines join in the special concurrence
For instant updates, follow me on Twitter.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Guides
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2012 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
43 comments Add your comment
Cutty
March 22nd, 2010
8:32 am
As this is a majority republican bench, I would love to see what the tea party gang has to say about this.
Road Scholar
March 22nd, 2010
8:37 am
Georgia’s healthcare solution? Nice try!
Now get down to ethics reform on par with Tennessee and Maryland. Clamp down on the lobbyists and those legislators “gaming ” the system.
TnGelding
March 22nd, 2010
8:44 am
Impeach!
Well, so much for tort reform. The GOP will be livid. Now lets see if the national changes can pass muster.
Andrew
March 22nd, 2010
8:48 am
Whether you think medical malpractice llawsuits are out of control or not (they’re not, by the way), this is a win for the citizens of the state of Georgia. And in response to Cutty @ 8:32, I think most libertarians will applaud this ruling. So-called “tort reform” is socialized justice – big government telling the people (juries) what they can and cannot decide. This is a little bright light after witnessing the fall of the republic in D.C. last night…
Cutty
March 22nd, 2010
8:57 am
Sooo, mandating that everyone has car insurance is ok,but doing the same for health insurance is the ‘fall of the republic’? Wouldn’t wiretapping American citizens be deemed the fall of the republic? Maybe I just don’t understand when some try to apply the Constitution to whatever suits their argument.
Bryan G.
March 22nd, 2010
9:19 am
This is a great victory for people everywhere.
Picture this: your stay-at-home wife is the victim of medical malpractice. Under the Georgia law that was passed, she would be entitled only to medical expenses plus $350,000 no matter how awful the error and how awful her pain.
Not only was this law unconstitutional, it was AWFUL policy.
conservative democrat
March 22nd, 2010
9:21 am
If Dr. Tom Price, Dr. Phil Ginghrey, and Dr. Broun all think that we have a shortage of docs, why don’t they get off the tax payers dole and do some medicine for which they were trained.
Andrew
March 22nd, 2010
9:28 am
Cutty, if you don’t understand the difference between mandating insurance for those who choose to own and drive a car, and mandating insurance simply because you are alive and you reside in the US, you aren’t going to understand the nuanced constitutional arguments anyway. Yes, mandating that I suck on the government’s teat is the “fall of the republic” in the sense that the contract between the people and government has been deleteriously and perhaps permenantly altered. The spirit of individualism, self-reliance and liberty that once defined and made the US unique (and prosperous) may have been dealt its death blow by this legislation.
Guy Davis
March 22nd, 2010
9:50 am
This decision in the Nestlehutt case is huge for the the citizens of Georgia. To better understand the facts of the case and why the “caps legislation” was not only unconstitutional but special interest legislation benefitting insurance companies go here for a short video explanation and a view of the devastating injury: http://vimeo.com/9943651
Port o'John
March 22nd, 2010
10:12 am
The claims that medical malpractice lawsuits are what has costs medical costs to increase is just more GOP bull-twaddle (and was false when the Georgia GOP rammed its medmal caps through):
“There is no growth in the number of new medical malpractice claims. According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, the number of new medical malpractice claims declined by about four percent between 1995 and 2000. There were 90,212 claims filed in 1995; 84,741 in 1996; 85,613 in 1997; 86,211 in 1998; 89,311 in 1999; and 86,480 in 2000.
While medical costs have increased by 113 percent since 1987, the amount spent on medical malpractice insurance has increased by just 52 percent over that time.
Insurance companies are raising rates because of poor returns on their investments, not because of increased litigation or jury awards, according to J. Robert Hunter, director of insurance for the Consumer Federation of America. Recent premiums were artificially low.
Malpractice insurance costs amount to only 3.2 percent of the average physician’s revenues.
Few medical errors ever result in legal claims. Only one malpractice claim is made for every 7.6 hospital injuries, according to a Harvard study. Further, plaintiffs drop 10 times more claims than they pursue, according to Physician Insurer Association of America data.
http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/National-Medical-Malpractice-Facts.cfm
That study was from 2001, but the trend in declining claims has continued:
Overall the frequency of claims against healthcare facilities is decreasing. In 2004, there were 3 claims for each 100 acute care bed equivalents, down from 3.3 percent in 1999.
Source:
http://www.medleague.com/Articles/medical_errors/medmalclaims.htm
But, of course the GOP still wants to claim that all we have to do to rein in health care costs is implement tort reform and make it impossible to sue a Doctor or hospital for negligence. When you are a shill for insurance companies (like the GOP) its hard to understand that insurance companies will always raise premiums … because they want to make more $$$. Look at this last year — healthcare insurers enjoyed record profits and still raised rates. If they can also reduce their potential liabilities by using their GOP tools in the legislature, then that is even better for the bottom-line.
RetiredSoldier
March 22nd, 2010
10:22 am
The solution to the Supreme Court decision is simple. I hope the legislature will propose a constitutional amendment that will replace what the court threw out. Any bets that the constitutional amendment wouldn’t pass?
Ok legislature get to work on it!
Ben
March 22nd, 2010
10:36 am
RE: RetiredSoldier @10:22
The legislature cannot legitimately pass an amendment to the Georgia Constitution that would be in violation of the Federal Constitution. That would be thrown out by a Federal Court quicker than you could say “I Object.”
This case centered on the right to a trial by jury (a right guaranteed by the 6th Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and applied to the States by the 14th Amendment), so nothing a State does can change or alter it. Any change would have to come in the form of a federal constitutional amendment, and those are MUCH harder to come by than state constitutional amendments.
Sue Me!
March 22nd, 2010
10:59 am
Great news for trial lawyers!!! Big $$$ lawsuits should explode with 40% contingency fees!!! Lawyers will be richer than ever!!!!
RetiredSoldier
March 22nd, 2010
11:03 am
Ben-
The federal court did not rule, the state supreme court did.
Second, The purpose of amending the constitution is to address the courts concerns. That is why there is three co-equal branches of government.
Is it possible a federal court might hear a case after a constitutional amendment is passed? Possible, but when was the last time a federal court found a part of a state constitution unconstitutional?
conservative democrat
March 22nd, 2010
11:23 am
If Georgia’s repubs want to let the insurance lobby write constitutional law again, I hope this time they will not try to rewrite established case law (Daubert) as they did the last time, i.e. holding a license as a medical professional qualifies one as an expert (in most states) regardless of whose one employer is. Better yet, REPUBLICANS, don’t let the insurance company shills write the law. Mr. Richardson, how much did you receive from those lobbiest again?
RetiredSoldier
March 22nd, 2010
11:37 am
Interesting rant…not!
Bryan G.
March 22nd, 2010
12:52 pm
Retiredsoldier – yes, it was a state court, but they found that the law violated the federal constitution. An amendment by the general assembly to the Ga constitution would not suffice.
As to your question of when a federal court overrules part of a state constitution – it happens all the time. State Courts interpret the federal constitution and vice-versa on a daily basis.
Bryan G.
March 22nd, 2010
12:54 pm
Oh, and finally: it’s hilarious how everyone bitches about how this will make trial lawyers rich.
The stupid thing about that is that all this decision did today was PROTECT normal CITIZENS. Not trial lawyers. If you don’t understand that, you’re not smart enough to bother with. See my post above re: stay at home mom.
RetiredSoldier
March 22nd, 2010
1:14 pm
Only thou is blessed with smarts, how did you ever get so lucky. The amendment is voted on by the people after it is placed on the ballot by the legislature. That is what trumps the state court. Lesson one from your political science course, or did you exempt the class due to your superior intelligence?
I notice you couldn’t name a case, oh well. Better luck next time.
disgruntled Marine
March 22nd, 2010
1:35 pm
For all the bleeding heart liberals who can not read, for you twist facts to suit your purpose more than any. The court opinion nowhere references the federal constitutionality. The opinion only references a similar federal opinion from a federal Supreme Court decision. Is it possible that Georgia could pass a State ammendment and it be struck down in a federal court as unconstitutional, absolutely. However, it is just as likely that if it were struck down on the federal level You would see a similar constitutional ammendment movement come to light in America much as you see the rebellion against your fascist rulers who passed that freedom stealing legislation last night. For if the follies you use to justify the passage hold true GM and Chrysler would make more affordable cars and more efficient ones if all Americans were requred to buy them. Thus giving them a larger POOL to draw from. You people will be the first led to slaughter by the fascist powers that you so blindly hand your freedoms to because your lazy.
gvs
March 22nd, 2010
2:04 pm
This was a great day, try having a child that a doctor took away his last hope when 99.9% of the other surgerions would have completed this surgery with ease, oh yeah it was the best hospital in our region. After surgery, that hope was lost. You have to explain to your child that the surgerion made a mistake and she is sorry. BTW, you only get $350 to give your child for the rest of his life!!!! Thank God, my brother fought for this day in court.
tort reform
March 22nd, 2010
2:07 pm
[...] [...]
Bryan G.
March 22nd, 2010
2:08 pm
Retired solider – how about all the Jim Crow laws? Secondly, you obviously didn’t read my post. A federal court (or even a state court) can overrule a state constitutional amendment on federal constitutional grounds.
GVS – that’s EXACTLY the point. How can the general assembly tell you that a child or a stay at home mom is ONLY worth $350K. Awful. Unfortunately, Retiredsoldier and disgruntledmarine don’t believe your child is worth more than that.
gvs
March 22nd, 2010
2:24 pm
My brother fights everyday for our belief that we the people can go to court and have a decision for the people, good or bad. He is in the Navy and I am very proud of him. I wonder if you owned a house and it’s worth 650K but someone destroyed it by mistake when they were only going to repair it. What would you think if your insurance company only gave you 350K and said rebuild with this and forget the rest? I image you would not feel the same. Well my son is worth more than a house, car, or any other material thing that I can think of. I would love to say his doctor was the best and he will have a great childhood but I can’t!!!! Open your minds and really think about this ruleing. It really is for the people of GA. Not everything is about the lawyers.
Bryan G.
March 22nd, 2010
2:28 pm
Spot on, gvs. I’m sorry for your son. I’m even more sorry that there are people out there that don’t understand your plight.
The thing is, EVERYONE loses when we cap damages. NOBODY wins except malpractice insurance companies when we cap them. Evidence shows that insurance premiums for health care and also med mal premiums don’t go down when we institute “tort reform.”
disgruntled Marine
March 22nd, 2010
2:41 pm
Bryan G., you place words in my mouth that I have not stated nor even implied. It goes to show just how ignorant you are versus the elitist enlightened one you portray to be. The above numbers in the thread mention nothing of the settlement figures associated with the declining number of lawsuits. Only the declining numbers, so here, I don’t truncate for the purpose of supporting my side I’ll present all the facts.
“A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine concluded that claims without evidence of error “are not uncommon, but most [72%] are denied compensation. The vast majority of expenditures [54%] go toward litigation over errors and payment of them. The overhead costs of malpractice litigation are exorbitant.” Physicians examined the records of 1452 closed malpractice claims. Ninety-seven percent were associated with injury; of them, 73% got compensation. Three percent of the claims were not associated with injuries; of them, 16% got compensation. 63% were associated with errors; of them, 73% got compensation (average $521,560). Thirty-seven percent were not associated with errors; of them, 28% got compensation (average $313,205). Claims not associated with errors accounted for 13 to 16% percent of the total costs. For every dollar spent on compensation, 54 cents went to administrative expenses (including lawyers, experts, and courts). Claims involving errors accounted for 78 percent of administrative costs.[10][11]
Not one number in the above shows anything to the contrary that tort reform is a NECESSITY. How we go about tort reform should be the argument oh short sighted one. As far as gvs’s child is concerned, I never said she didn’t mean anything to me or that she was worth far less than $350k. I actually support the constitutional decision that was rendered. In case you are to dense to see and acknowledge my earlier response did not mention the merrits of tort reform anywhere. You claim to be so much more knowledgable and enlightened why are the European countries with these same models you propose and the Asian countries and the other eutopian marxist socialist societies of the world either dieing more rapidly or already extinct like the USSR.
Bryan G.
March 22nd, 2010
2:46 pm
Mea culpa, disgruntled. I misread your earlier post. As you apparently misread mine. I don’t recall supporting any European model. I’m not for gov’t interfering in either health care or interfering in the conscience of an enlightened and impartial jury.
The problem with tort reform is that now we’ve legalized negligence in emergency rooms. If you go to an emergency room and the doctor screws up, you can’t recover (unless you show by clear & convincing evidence that the doc was grossly negligent…almost an impossible standard).
Tort “reform” really isn’t the answer. But “universal healthcare” isn’t either.
disgruntled Marine
March 22nd, 2010
2:49 pm
And by the way BRY here’s another one for you
“These critics assert that these rate increases are causing doctors to go out of business or move to states with more favorable tort systems.[14] Not everyone agrees, though, that medical malpractice lawsuits are solely causing these rate increases. A 2003 report from the General Accounting Office found multiple reasons for these rate increases, with medical malpractice lawsuits being the primary driver.[15] Despite noting multiple reasons for rate increases, the report goes on to state that the “GAO found that losses on medical malpractice claims-which make up the largest part of insurers’ costs-appear to be the primary driver of rate increases in the long run.”
The GAO is a non partisan body that “KEEPS SCORE” just Like the “CBO” you liberal pukes used to pass socialism last night.
disgruntled Marine
March 22nd, 2010
2:56 pm
Apparently we may be on the same side with slightly different views on how to get there. Wait that sounds like the model we have used for over 200 years that has worked so well.
Michael Owen
March 22nd, 2010
3:16 pm
It’s those darned “unelected activist liberal judges, appointed for life, and accountable to no one” at it again.
Oh, wait! These judges ARE elected, serve for a term and accountable to EVERYONE…and they STILL say, 7-0, the business-controlled Georgia legistalture can’t take away your right to justice.
tc
March 22nd, 2010
3:50 pm
per disgruntled marine…you should have inserted “puke” after liberal and before judges…
Michael
March 22nd, 2010
5:14 pm
I’ll sell you my son right now for $350k.
AF
March 22nd, 2010
7:24 pm
Andrew at 9:28 am: “The spirit of individualism, self-reliance and liberty that once defined and made the US unique (and prosperous) may have been dealt its death blow by this legislation.”
__________________________
While we all bow in adoration of the image of the lonely cowboy riding the range with his trusty six-shooter at his side herding his cattle to market – the image of individualism – we are also a society.
It was as a society that all those cowboys and their wives got together and decided that they would like to have schools for the kids, rules about where sewage gets dumped, clean water, a paid sheriff and deputies to hunt down the bad guys, and paid community firemen rather than the volunteer associations of the past.
The individual cannot accomplish these things on his/her own. It takes a society, a group deciding together and forming a (oh, hateful word) government to oversee the accomplishment of the goals of the group.
It was a society – the big, bad, government – that passed legislation and gave the land that let investors build railroads all over the country to make it possible for the cowboy to have a larger market, which means bigger herds, which means he could make more money. Later on, it was the same big, bad, government that built the interstate highway system that connected small and large towns and opened commerce even more, so that we now have the same chain stores in virtually every shopping center across America. And the individualism of the small mom and pop grocery, dress shop, bakery, pharmacy, and just about everything else that was the mom and pop store – is just about gone.
Liberty will not be lessened, opportunity will not be lost, if society decides that health care is a public good, just as schools, highways, police, and clean water are public goods.
AF
March 22nd, 2010
7:38 pm
Health care will not get better, it will not be more available to more people, if we have so-called “tort reform.” Thank goodness the courts are throwing it out.
And, tort reform will only very marginally help reduce costs. The estimate I read is that tort costs are barely 1% of the total health care costs in the country. Thuglicans harping on “tort reform” as some important element of health care reform are blowing smoke in your face.
Anti-Andrew
March 22nd, 2010
8:11 pm
Enough of the self-righteous constitutional scholars. I’m sure we can all agree with the old adage that the Constitution doesn’t protect your “right” to yell fire in a crowded theatre. Further, I am certain that the neo-constitutional scholars can find room in their myopic jurisprudence to agree that my rights extend only as far as your rights begin (it used to be considered the tip of your nose; however, I am sure Andrew has found a means of extending his rights further than the tip of his nose into my bedroom, my wife’s uterus and who knows where else).
The insurance mandate in the new health care payment reform law (NOT HEALTH CARE REFORM)is critical to health care payment reform (NOT HEALTH CARE REFORM) because if Andrew: 1) exercises his “right” not have health insurance; 2) loses his ability to pay for health care because another conservative administration protects his cherished free markets at the expense of the real middle class succeeding only in destroying the capital markets for which America’s feudal lords depend for their wealth; 3) contracts a long-term, chronic, expensive disease (heaven forbid it is some awful disease reserved for those “condemned by God”), then who does he thinks is going to pay for his coverage. I will. You will. All of us who did the responsible thing and purchased health insurance.
How? Because hospitals and health care providers shift the costs of Andrew’s care to their paying patients through increased rates. Those patient care cost increases effect the insured, uninsured, Medicare, and Medicaid alike. Yes, I know that insurance companies get very generous “discounts”. For the math whizzes out there, a 60% discount on $100 is still much more than a 60% discount on $50. If Andrew has insurance, and the hospital doesn’t have to eat his costs, then we’re all more likely to pay some portion of $50. If Andrew doesn’t have insurance, we are all more likely to pay some portion of a number closer to $100. Cost-shifting 101. Those who receive charity care are actually “covered” by your tax dollars (e.g. Grady is supported extensively by Fulton County, Dekalb County, and State of Georgia TAX DOLLARS). How do all you fiscal conservatives, taxes are bad, Washington is wasting our tax dollars, Obama is a socialist feel about paying for Andrew “right” to not purchase health care twice: once through your insurance premiums (Medicare (or socialist medicine) or private insurance (those stalwarts of fairness)) and a second time with YOUR tax dollars. And funding for abortion was your biggest concern?!?
So stop with all this crap about your individual rights and your constitutionally protected ability to be irresponsible and not have health insurance! Your decision affects my pocket MUCH more than the cost of the Health Care Payment Reform (NOT HEALTH CARE REFORM) law. If you can’t figure out how spending $970 million SAVES $138 million, this is a part of the explanation.
Yankee
March 22nd, 2010
10:59 pm
Yes, yes, yes. So the legislature can’t shield doctors and health care providers from personal responsibility. Imagine that. In Georgia, no less. A ray of hope in this place.
Switching Sides
March 23rd, 2010
5:02 am
I give up. If you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em. Seriously, I’m giving up the practice of medicine and going into law. Why should I try to help people in emergencies with understaffed overburdened ED’s when I can make easy money just suing people?
Looks like I’ll be taking the LSAT afterall.
Diane Kennedy’s USATaxAid » STATES WITH MOST ABUSIVE LAWSUIT SYSTEMS
March 23rd, 2010
7:46 pm
[...] Georgia Supreme Court declares caps on malpractice lawsuits are unconstitutional [...]
Jhoya
March 24th, 2010
11:30 am
As a young doctor in a highly competitive and in demand medical subspecialty about to enter practice, why on God’s green earth would I now choose Georgia to practice. Med mal has nothing to do with right/wrong decisions but outcomes. I could do everything according to guidelines perfectly. If my patient still has a bad outcome(doctors are not God!) we can get sued and lose. Cross Georgia off the list. Hmm texans seem to have a wide variety of choice when it comes to physicians. Wonder why.
Jack Nine Offsuit
March 24th, 2010
1:08 pm
Jhoya and Switchin’ Sides: I think you’ve both been duped by your malpractice carriers. Med mal law has EVERYTHING to do with right and wrong decisions, not just bad outcomes. Under the law, every other member and profession in our society is held to a simple standard: if you do something wrong that a reasonable person in your profession/situation would not have done, and your actions cause harm then you can be held responsible for the harm you caused.
Why should doctors be treated any differently? Do you not believe in personal responsibility and accountability for your actions?
A Georgia Surgeon
March 24th, 2010
6:09 pm
What I do know is that my malpractice premiums went from $95,000 per year before tort reform to $22,000 after tort reform. This has allowed me to continue to practice in the state of Georgia. Otherwise I would have left and gone to Texas like other physicians. Higher malpractice premiums are not a cost that can be passed on to my patients. If a doctor cannot pay his bills he will leave. This means that emergency treatment will not be available and we will all suffer. Does doctors going broke make them more accountable and responsible. I doubt it.
Jack Nine Offsuit
March 24th, 2010
7:39 pm
Georgia Surgeon: It sounds like the issue then is with your malpractice carrier, because study after study shows that lawsuit filings have been basically static for the last 15-20 years. Plus, if you look at most states that have enacted tort reform caps on damages, and compare their increases in medical malpractice premiums to states that haven’t enacted caps, you’ll see that the difference is negligible.
Putting a $350K cap on a medical malpractice victim’s permanent pain and suffering, disfigurement, physical impairment and value of life is not the way to solve the problem. It only comes into play for those victims who have been harmed the most (those whose cases would have been worth more than $350K absent the caps).
Instead of arguing for caps and tort reform, I think doctors like yourself should be pushing for insurance reform that includes removing the industry’s anti-trust exemption so that their books can be truly examined. Because I do agree with you—$95,000 is way too much for you to be paying for malpractice insurance (though to be totally fair, you haven’t told us what you earn per year).
Jhoya
April 3rd, 2010
10:35 am
Jack nine offsuit: The only ones that truly benefit from the current malpractice tort system are trial attorneys. Something like 50 cents on the dollar goes to an injured patient once court costs and attorney fees are paid. This to me is appalling. The whole “insurance companies are evil” argument just doesn’t hold much weight in the malpractice realm seeing how states with tort reform see much lower malpractice premiums. If you don’t believe me when I say that outcomes are the number one predictor of success in a medical mal lawsuit, see the article in JAMA from I think 2-3 years ago about the family practice resident who practiced guideline driven medicine on PSA testing for prostate cancer.basically, he practiced guidelien driven medicine and a patient got prostate cancer despite the advised screening. He and his residecy were sued and lost a multimillion dolalr settlement prompting him to quit medicine. Unfortunately, cases like this are not uncommon in the present system. One case liek this can ruin your a medical career (a creer in which all of my twenties have been sacrificed and ahs sent me1 $100,000 in debt).The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Otherwise, doctor friendly states like texas will continue to reap the benefits especially in high risk specialties like Ob/GYN. You would have to be crazy to pactice high risk specialties like ObGYN in a litigous state(what Georgia is about to become). Life is simply too short to life like that.