Malpractice
Awards Must Be Brought Under Control
By U.S. Representative Jeff Miller
"President Bush says frivolous lawsuits have never helped
anyone. Yeah, tell that to my new house in Georgetown." This
quote, cited from the Raleigh News and Observer, are the words of
Sen. John Edwards, presidential candidate and former trial lawyer,
speaking at the annual Gridiron dinner at the Capital Hilton in
Washington. Although said in jest, this gives some insight to the
mindset of many in Congress who oppose medical professional liability
insurance reform.
There
is no denying that we have a growing problem in our health-care
industry. Doctors are struggling to keep their doors open and Americans
are suffering because they cannot find a physician. Enrollment is
down in many medical schools because students are shying away from
much needed, high skill specialty medicine, such as emergency medicine,
neurosurgery and obstetrics. This national crisis is caused by the
soaring price of medical professional liability insurance that is
driven by expensive litigation on futile claims.
So
what should Congress do? The debate took center stage last week
on the floor of the House of Representatives when we voted 229 to
196 in favor of H.R. 5, which is legislation modeled after California's
quarter-century-old health-care litigation reform. This will cap
non-economic damages at $250,000 but does not limit, in any way,
an award of economic damages. In other words, anything that can
be quantified, such as lost wages, medical costs, therapy or anything
with a receipt attached can be rewarded. Nothing about this common-sense
approach prevents juries awarding very large amounts to deserving
victims of medical malpractice.
The
opponents of this method of reform often cite the unfortunate events
in North Carolina surrounding Jesica Santillan, the young girl who
received the wrong organ transplant at Duke University, as a way
to halt the caps. They challenge that this erroneous incident demands
punishment to the fullest extent.
While
my heart goes out to the family who lost their little girl, I fail
to see how an unlimited damages lawsuit would have prevented this
situation. The doctor in this case has accepted responsibility for
himself and his team. Prior to this event, he had a fine and distinguished
medical record. But unlimited liability did not act as a deterrent
to error and will not bring this girl back to her family. In fact,
we will only see another doctor, who made a horrible and regretful
mistake, unable to perform the lifesaving procedures that might
save lives in the future.
Many
states, including Florida, have similar proposals to that of Congress.
I have often heard that opponents feel that this issue should be
dealt with at the state level, claiming the federal government will
preempt state law. This simply is not true. Provisions in the federal
bill will exclude states that already have similar caps. We must
also realize that reform at the federal level is necessary to increase
workers' access to health care everywhere.
We
live in an interconnected economy where businesses operate in many
different states. Unlimited liability in some states makes health-care
costs go up for all. Unifying this system will help keep insurance
rates consistent, which will in turn help employers offer health
insurance to more employees.
In
America today, it seems easier to sue a doctor than to see a doctor.
The litigation process in this county is broken and being taken
advantage of by some opportunistic trial lawyers. Medical professionals
should not be forced to abandon patients and practices because major
insurers have had to reduce coverage or raise premiums to outrageous
levels. Every American deserves to have access to a qualified physician,
not the bill for fancy homes in Georgetown.
Reprinted
with permission from the office of United States Representative
Jeff Miller (R-FL).
[Posted
April 3, 2003]
Return
to Current Events Index
|