Nevada Re-Evaluates Its Limits on Medical Malpractice Damages
Attorney
(866) 735-1102 Ext 315
In 2004 Nevada passed a law that capped punitive damages to $350,000 in medical malpractice cases. The bill was part of the “Keep our Doctors in Nevada Act” in which supporters claimed limits on recovery were necessary in order to keep doctors in high specialties in the state.
Now, due to a hepatitis outbreak, as a result of unsanitary vaccination practices, Nevada has re-evaluated its stance on tort reform and is initiated the passing of AB495, which would eliminate the cap on non-economic damages.
The hepatitis outbreak resulted in 50,000 patients being notified that they were put at risk for contracting the disease. The AP reports that this is the largest patient notification in U.S. history.
Opponents of AB495 reiterate that the lifting the limit on non-economic damages will place doctors in the same precarious situation to either relocate their practices or face high insurance premiums.
Supporters of the bill contend that $350,000 does not adequately compensate victims of medical malpractice. For example, Cathy Bussewitz of the Associated Press noted:
Megan Gasper, 33, a mother of two children, told legislators she contracted hepatitis C after having two colonoscopies performed at the two clinics where the outbreak occurred, the Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and the Desert Shadow Endoscopy Center.
"This has pretty much stolen a year of my life," Gasper said, fighting tears. "When you have to get up out of bed every day, and know that you have to take a medicine that will seriously affect your ability to play with your children, it's hard to give yourself a self-injection."
Former patients and family members told frightening stories of substandard care. Kevin Murray lost his daughter when doctors failed to notice the signs of meningitis. Michael Washington, who was the first patient to test positive for hepatitis C after the outbreak, said he would never be normal again.
To some supporters of the bill, these claims reinforce their beliefs that limits on non-economic caps decrease the quality of care patients will receive since doctors have limited liability for their mistakes.
While it’s clear that Congress intends for tort reform to reduce the amount of insurance premiums paid by doctors, there is much conflict as to whether capping “pain and suffering” damages is effective. In 2007, Public Citizen issued “The Great Medical Malpractice Hoax.” In this report, Public Citizen noted:
American Medical Association President Donald Palmisano told the 2004 Annual Meeting of the AMA House of Delegates that “what is driving this crisis are the out-of-sight awards some runaway juries are handing out in certain liability cases.” This assertion is incorrect on the facts – when adjusted for inflation, the median judgment grew only from $125,000 in 1991 to $139,100 in 2005, a mere $14,000 over 14 years. Such a modest increase hardly suggests that juries are irrational
In addition, it was further reported:
· The number of malpractice payments declined 15.4 percent between 1991 and 2005.
· Adjusted for inflation, the average annual payment for verdicts declined 8 percent between 1991 and 2005.
· Payments for million-dollar verdicts were less than 3 percent of all payments in 2005.
These are just sone of many discrepancies regarding tort reform. Even insurance companies seem to have difficulty providing consistent statistics that tort reform is effective.
For more facts on medical malpractice claims and tort reform click here.