Would Specter Be Bad News For Tort Reformers?
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
There's (another) good reason for physicians to take an interest in who is appointed Chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee--his record suggests Specter would be bad for tort reform.
"" A brief look at Mr. Specter's record makes that clear. In May of 1995, weeks into the new Republican majority, Mr. Specter tried to derail a product-liability reform bill. He voted against limits on attorney fees for medical liability suits and against limiting punitive damages to three times economic damages (not a hard cap, since economic damages would not be capped).
"Mr. Specter also voted against an amendment to limit non-economic damages to $500,000 and against another to protect OB/GYNs from being sued for problems they didn't cause. Mr. Specter also voted against the final bill. " --Washington Times"
More at NotSpecter.com.
[Via Overlawyered ]
Summary of Medical Liability Ballot Initiatives
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Human Events Online: Medical Liability
""Voters in four states--Oregon, Florida, Nevada, and Wyoming--considered ballot initiatives to reform the broken medical liability systems in their states. In Oregon, Ballot Measure 35, which would have amended the constitution to establish a $500,000 cap on non-economic damages in medical liability cases, lost by 50.53% to 49.47%. In Florida, Ballot Measure 3 to amend the state constitution and limit contingency fees attorneys receive in medical liability cases passed 63.5% to 36.5%. In Nevada, Ballot Measure 3, which would amend Nevada's existing medical liability reform law by deleting exceptions to the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases, passed by 58.72% to 40.14%. In Wyoming, Amendment D, which would amend to the Constitution to allow the state legislature to enact caps on noneconomic damages, failed by a 2-to-1 margin.""
Ballot measure results
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Ballot measure results:
""...voters gave doctors and the business community some major victories in yesterday's ballot measures. Limits on malpractice lawyers' fees passed resoundingly in Florida, in a stinging rebuke to the trial bar. Among three other states considering med-mal ballot measures, doctors won decisively in Nevada and lost in Wyoming, while Oregon's measure was slightly trailing but too close to call..""
[Via Overlawyered]
Stop the Shakedown
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
WSJ: Stop the Shakedown:
""The defeat of most lawyer-curbing initiatives follows a depressing script. Armed with favorable opinion polls, confident reformers begin collecting signatures. After some time they realize that the lawyers are doing far better than they are at framing the issues in the press, polishing sympathetic anecdotes and exploiting distrust of change (especially if reforms are to be inscribed in a state constitution). While lawyers summon help from partners such as the AFL-CIO and Sierra Club, natural allies on the reform side sit things out. Soon the "No on Amendment Z" side has run the table on newspaper endorsements. Then the massive ad buys have their effect..""
[Via medpundit]
Wyoming med-mal study
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
Wyoming med-mal study:
""The Milliman actuarial firm projects what will happen if Wyoming enacts a cap on non-economic damages. According to Martin Grace's summary [pdf], the study's simulation model "suggests that the cap [at a level of $250,000] will reduce losses and loss adjustmen expenses by about 15%""
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
New site: Legal Reform Now
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
New site: Legal Reform Now
""LegalReformNow.com, a new website on legal reform, was launched today. The site is managed by the Institute for Legal Reform (ILR), an arm of the United States Chamber of Commerce committed to tort reform at the state and federal level. LegalReformNow.com is intended as a "clearinghouse for legal reform information on the Web sponsored by a diverse coalition of associations, chambers of commerce, think tanks and state-based legal reform groups."""
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Heal the Law, Then Health Care
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
I'm reading more about Expert Medical Courts. Although my initial reaction is to avoid the creation of a new expert medical court beurocracy, I'm beginning to see the necessity of it.
Heal the Law, Then Health Care
Troyen A. Brennan and Philip K. Howard
The Washington Post, January 25, 2004
""What's missing from the current debate is any discussion of how the legal system should work in health care. Law is not some sort of sacred mandate but a tool to serve the common good. Asking how law can best serve health care leads to an unavoidable conclusion: A system of justice must be created that makes deliberate judgments -- reliable for patients and providers alike -- with improved patient care as the primary goal.""
