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)

Bob thanks for the report. Conn. my home state. There must be some groups fighting this. Where thair any speakers from organized groups? I don't like the 2 or 3 year statue that a lot of states have as a limt in time that you can sue. It toke me that long just to find out that i has lied to by all my doc's and that i should sue. nice report thank agian!!!!!!!! Paul

Paul,
from what I can tell, the patient contingent is much less represented and organized than the Insurance Companies, Hospitals, and Docs. I found out (after the hearing) that one group, the CT State Medical Society, has a web site that explains the legislative process with respect to "open to the public". They state that to get on the "list" to speak, one must arrive very early to sign-up. They go on to say that if someone wants to speak at the hearing, just let them know and their early bird will sign them all up. When I went to get my name on the list there was already a page plus of names. In the column labeled "representing", it said (for virtually all of them) "CMSC". It was all in the same handwriting.

I understand the game now, only let the committee hear one side until they get so tired of it they stop listening. In my case, I was not able to speak because they ran out of time. They're supposed to reschedule and continue hearing the public's opinion. This time I'll be very prepared. I already looked up some info on the CSMC and one of the insurer's who spoke during the formal part of the schedule.

I'll post out my speach (probably not until I give it.) In the meantime, if anyone has any helpful info, please pass it along!

Bob