Saturday, December 18, 2004
Pennsylvania and Medical Courts
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
From Law.com: States Weigh Med-Mal Courts.
" "In Pennsylvania, a House bill was introduced in 2003 that would have created a Medical Professional Liability Court. The bill never made it out of committee.
"It was the source of a lot of discussions for the greater part of four or five months," said Mark Phenicie, the legislative counsel for the Pennsylvania Trial Lawyers Association. "But it hasn't happened ... .We have the additional impediment here that all of the judges are elected. If I'm a judge, I probably wouldn't want to have to run in a partisan statewide campaign just to be in a malpractice court." " "
Like other malpractice reform proposals, it never made it 'out of committee' because legislators from the Philadelphia area (who represent the trial lawyer lobby) prevented it from going to the floor for a vote.
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Friday, November 19, 2004
"Dispelling malpractice myths"
-
Printer Friendly|#| Trackback
"Dispelling malpractice myths" by the president of Johns Hopkins University:
""News reports of recent efforts to reduce malpractice insurance costs have missed what is needed: genuine reform of the medical justice system.
A good way to start is by jettisoning some commonly held misperceptions about the current malpractice system. Call them the "Myths of Malpractice..."""
[Via PointOfLaw Forum]
Tuesday, November 16, 2004
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 ]
Saturday, November 6, 2004
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.""
Wednesday, November 3, 2004
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]
Sunday, October 31, 2004
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]
Thursday, October 28, 2004
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]
Monday, October 25, 2004
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]
Saturday, October 23, 2004
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.""
| |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
| 5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
| 12 |
13 |
14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
| 19 |
20 |
21 |
22 |
23 |
24
|
25 |
| 26 |
27 |
28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
|
Nov Feb
|
