United Brachial Plexus Network, Inc.

Hi,
I spent 1/2 the day yesterday at the Legislative Office in my state's (CT) capitol hearing a bunch of horse crap about how CT should enact a law limiting the emotional/physical "pain and suffering" portion of a lawsuit to $250,000. (They were not trying to limit the economic portion which includes medical bills and lost wages.) There was a committee of state senator's and rep's that heard an agenda of speakers including Malpractice insurance firms, doctors, hospitals, and trial lawyers.
After the planned part of the session, the public was allowed to speak. I got my name on the list, but time ran out and they are going to reschedule the hearing. I had scratched out some notes on the things I wanted to say, but I really want to be prepared for the next session. So I'm looking for some input from this board so I can stand up and represent our side of the story.
The insurance/Doc/Hospital side of the story is that malpractice insurance is prohibitively expensive and we all will suffer because good docs are being forced out of the system. Some data (given by the malpractice insurer) said the Ob/Gyn and neurologists pay $120,000 a year in malpractice ins and many are leaving the field (or prospective docs are just not getting in to it.) They talked about run away lawsuits where excessive awards and too compassionate juries who tie the severity of the injury and not the severity of the negligence to the award. They also talked about the process of getting a medical expert's approval before bringing a case forward. The said this system is severely flawed because it's too easy to get an out of state doctor's blessing to pursue the lawsuit.
Many references were made to a law enacted in California where the emotional portion of the lawsuit was capped at $250,000 IN 1975!!!!! So they felt that this was an appropriate cap for CT in 2003!!!!! They also said that trial lawyers are the problem because they "drum up" business with their advertising and (implied) ambulance chasing. They said that lawyers were greedy, routinely taking a full 33 1/3% of all settlement money when there is a law saying they should only get 33 1/3% on the first 300K and then get a decreasing percentage for every next 300K down to 10%.
I was impressed by the questions asked by the legislative committee. I don't think they were fooled by a lot of what they heard. They asked good questions and in essence asked these people if they felt that a jury of our peers, the fundamental foundation of our legal system was incompetent to determine an appropriate award. The basic feeling by the ins/doc/hosp was "YES"!! because these cases are too emotionally charged.
The trail lawyers association presented their side of the argument. They pointed out that many cases that can be brought forward are not even pursued and that the problem is the malpractice and not the high cost of the insurance. The argued that to put a cap on the emotional side of things was unjust. They allowed several people to speak about their own situations. There was a 35 year-old woman who lost the use of BOTH of her legs after a botched epidural. There was a guy whose wife went in for a routine angiogram and was hooked up the carbon monoxide (I think it was CO) instead of oxygen and died very quickly. He said the same thing happened at the same hospital a week earlier!!! There was another story about a women who went (with her two young children) to get a routine allergy shot and was basically dead before the ambulance and her husband (called in from work) got there.
I can go on an on about what I heard and how I felt, but what I really need is some input so that this horrible bill doesn't get passed. If anyone has any info you feel would be useful to present "our" side of this story, please respond here or sent me an e-mail.
Thanks,
Bob (father to Alex, L-OBPI)

This cap is in place already in KS

Hi guest,
can you add more to your comment. When was it implemented? Why was it implemented? Is it working? What's your angle? Are you a plaintiff in a malpractice suit? Are you a doctor/lawyer/Ins person?
Thanks,
Bob

The cap is already in place in PA.

Prior to my daughter's injury I was a strong proponent of tort reform. But as you can imagine, since November 26, 2001 I am less enthused.

I have come to several conclusions regarding medical malpractice which I would like to share:

1. There should not be a statutory limit on "pain and suffering". How can Congress or the President ever know the cost of my daughter's pain from surgery and therapy and loss of function. However, I believe a limit on punitive damages is a good idea. Who is being punished? The doctor is rarely, if ever, effected by the award. The insurance company pays for it.

2. State Medical Boards must become more accountable. I read that 54% of all malpractice cases are caused by only 5% of the doctors. The medical boards should take stronger action against these frequent offenders and mandate higher standards of care for all doctors. Fewer instances of malpractice would result in fewer legal actions which would result in lower premiums. After all, isn't the goal to reduce the number of injuries in the first place.

3. It is totally unfair to blame the problems on "trial lawyers". They are no more greedy than you or I. They are businessmen operating in a system where thier economic incentive is to achieve the highest award possible, for themselves and thier client. I'm not sure that the solution is to change the compensation arrangement (after all, these lawyers do take on significant risk) but I think it is something that should be looked at.

4. There needs to be a reform in the malpractice insurance industry. I have read that a major cause of the recent spike in malpractice insurance premiums was the failed business models of the insurance companies themselves. In the early 1990's there was an influx of new insurance companies offering malpractice insurance. The increased competition caused many firms to sell coverage at or below cost. The insurance companies were willing to do this because significant gains in the stock market offset the losses. But when the stock market dropped, many firms left the unprofitable malpractice business, leaving the few remaining firms to charge ever-increasing prices.


Conclusion: this area is much more complex than either side would have you believe. But it is unfair to place the burden for the solution on the backs of those who have already suffered enough. In my opinion the best solution is one where the number of malpractice events is reduced (and the bad Dr.s are kicked out), insurance companies are forced to run sound businesses, lawyers act solely in the best interest of thier client, and where the injured receive reasonable, but equitable, compensation for thier loss.

It's amazing how differently two people can feel about the same meeting. I was very upset about the whole idea of a $250,000 cap prior to the meeting. However, I came out of the meeting feeling much better about things. I still feel the same way about the crazy idea of setting a cap and esp. making it a # that is 28 years old and seems to be some arbitrary number, but what I feel better about is how it was received by the senate and house members. To me, it seemed like at this point they're not buying it and wouldn't agree to the $250k cap. I know it doesn't really matter what I perceive and the only thing that matters in the end is what they decide upon, but I just wanted to say that I felt more confident about the matter leaving the room than I did going into the room. Perhaps it's because I'd already been upset about everything beforehand and prepared myself for much worse.

Anyway, I also wanted to say that's great that you're planning to speak. Either my husband or I were considering speaking, but we weren't able to get things together in time with our attorney. Our attorney is going to write up a summary of our case and we'll review it and put it into our own words (and then of course have them okay it again). I will email you and would be glad to share with you what we come up with prior to the followup hearing.

Do you have a lawsuit pending? If so, you might want to contact your attorney and see if they want to help you prepare a statement or at least review your statement prior to the meeting.

Wasn't it difficult hearing those experiences?! It was very emotional. I was so impressed though at how brave that woman w/the epidural was after just having given birth to her 3rd baby last week. It was quite amazing.

It's too bad we weren't able to connect prior to the hearing so that we could've met. I've seen you post before, but I didn't know that you were from CT. Anyway, I'll email you because I'd like to keep this post anonymous.

Thank you, Clint, for a concise and well worded answer for Bob.

Bob--if Clint will let you, take his post to the meeting and read it there.

claudia