Missouri Accident Lawyer Blog

The Illinois Supreme Court on Thursday found that a state law capping non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases was unconstitutional. The ruling will lift the cap which had previously limited pain-and-suffering damages at $500,000 or $1 million, depending on whether the case was being brought against an individual doctor or a hospital.

Illinois' ruling comes at a time when Missouri's Supreme Court is also debating whether to backtrack on a failed experiment with tort reform. Here in the Show Me State, the cap on non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases has been $350,000 since a 2005 tort reform law. All this experiment has shown us, though, is that this very low cap saves hospitals a small percentage on malpractice insurance while no savings is seen by the health care consumer. This negligible savings comes at a great cost to those who are seriously injured by medical malpractice.

Supporters of tort reform in Illinois were predictably disappointed in Thursday's decision. Some statements by tort reform advocates in the media claimed the decision was more about lawyers than patients and that tort reform is still the best way to curb health care costs.

What supporters don't realize is that tort reform isn't about protecting patients at all. It's about taking money directly out of the pocket of seriously injured people at the most challenging moment in their lives and protecting hospitals and insurance companies. Perhaps tort reform could be seen as viable option if the ends justified the means, but the ultimate goal of tort reform, cutting health care costs, is not being met. Most independent studies claim that even if the United States as a whole adopted an aggressive set of tort reform policies, the total savings would only be one or two percent on the total cost of health care. Keep in mind that this tiny savings will be financed by the pain and suffering of thousands of malpractice victims who won't receive their full reward as determined by a jury.

Hopefully Missouri follows Illinois' lead and we can go back to putting patients first.

Posted by Ryan Bradley | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Healthcare , Medical Malpractice

Bookmark:

Arguments on a case that could have big ramifications for medical malpractice laws in the state of Missouri were heard today by the Missouri Supreme Court. At the heart of the issue is the question of whether the state's $350,000 non-economic damage cap is fair to consumers and whether the cap can be applied retroactively to injuries sustained before a limit was in place.

As we reported earlier, the case was initially filed by James and Mary Klotz of Arnold, Missouri. James Klotz won a medical malpractice lawsuit after massive complications arose from an operation to insert a pacemaker. While the jury awarded Klotz $1 million, the non-economic damages were reduced to just $350,000. While the actual lawsuit was filed after the 2005 cap was put in place, the personal injuries were sustained in an operation that occurred in 2004.

Those opposed to the damage caps, including consumer advocates and Missouri medical malpractice lawyers, say that the caps are unfair and unconstitutional. They could also be seen as restricting access to the court system, especially for people earning lower to moderate incomes. If non-economic damage awards are reduced arbitrarily to $350,000, it makes it financially unfeasible to take a case to court, a process which could cost tens of thousands of dollars in itself.

It also seems particularly unfair to limit the award given to the James Klotz since his injuries were sustained prior to the cap being in place. According to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, the argument was made before the Supreme Court that limiting the Klotz award was similar to placing a limit on damages for accident victims the day after a bridge collapse. The defense argued that lawsuits arising from that hypthetical situation were different than the actual medical malpractice case before the court.

We will be sure to follow up on this story as it develops.

Posted by Ryan Bradley | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Healthcare , Medical Malpractice , Missouri Legislative News , Personal Injury News

Bookmark:

Arguments for lifting Missouri's noneconomic damage cap based on they claim it may be unconstitutional will be heard early in 2010. Currently, there is a $350,000 award limit in medical liability cases.

This challenge to the current system, put in place through a tort reform movement in 2005, comes on the heels of large medical malpractice verdict from 2008. In that case, James Klotz received a $1 million dollar jury verdict after complications from an operation to insert a pacemaker. His pacemaker became infected and he had to suffer through brain hemorrhages and the amputation of his right leg. His wife also had to quit her job in order to care for him. Due to the noneconomic damage cap on Missouri medical malpractice lawsuits, however, the amount of money Klotz would actually receive will be far less should the cap not be lifted.

Those in support of tort reform due so largely on the assumption that limiting damage awards will lower costs for doctors and insurance companies who will then pass the savings on to the consumer. Since the 2005 tort reforms in Missouri, though, these assumptions have only been proven half true. Some doctors claim their malpractice insurance premiums have dropped by as much as 25 percent and the average malpractice award has dropped overall. These changes have not benefited the average person, though, as health care costs for the consumer have continued to rise unchecked.

So unless the damage caps are eliminated, we will continue to have a system where awards are arbitrarily limited in order to save money for hospitals and insurance companies while the average person receives no financial benefit. Additionally, those like Mr. Klotz who are unfortunate enough to suffer a personal injury due to a medical error will not be protected and not receive the full compensation determined by a jury.

Similar results have also been seen in other tort reform states like Texas. The financial benefits promised by tort reformers are simply not there while legitimately suffering people are left without full compensation. It's time to let Missouri personal injury lawyers and the civil court system go back to doing their job of holding negligent medical institutions accountable.

Posted by Ryan Bradley | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Healthcare , Medical Malpractice , Missouri Personal Injury Lawyer News , Personal Injury News

Bookmark:

The issue of medical malpractice lawsuits and the push by some for tort reform has been an ongoing battle for decades. With the recent debate for health insurance reform in Washington, tort reform has once again been thrust into the mainstream spotlight. President Obama and others have hinted that tort reform compromises may be necessary to pass health care reform.

If health care reform comes at the cost of limiting patients’ rights through tort reform, then this whole health care debate will have amounted to two steps forward and two steps back for the well being of medical patients in this country.

Here are some myths often spread by tort reform supporters and the facts debunking them:

Myth: Medical malpractice lawsuits are frivolous or unnecessary.

Fact: 98,000 people die each year from preventable medical errors. That is 98,000 human beings who lost their lives due to a hospital’s or doctor’s mistake. The CDC doesn’t include preventable medical errors on its list of causes of death, but if it did, it would be the 6th leading cause of death in the U.S. Any system that attempts to hold doctors accountable and prevent these deaths is absolutely necessary.

As far as the claim that most suits are frivolous, that is simply not true. Very few claims are even filed in potential malpractice incidents and of the ones that are filed, the vast majority are meritorious. Frivolous lawsuits are weeded out by laws already on the books.

Myth: Patients filing suits for large damage sums are just looking to make it rich.

Fact: Patients just want justice. Those unfortunate enough to suffer injury from medical malpractice only want to be made whole again and have their resulting medical bills covered. Punitive damages are only leveled against the most negligent doctors to hold them accountable. One study cited by the American Association for Justice states that 70 percent of patients who experience an injury due to medical error were not told at the time by their doctor. It has been shown that doctors and hospitals that operate under full disclosure and apologize for medical errors are sued about half as much.

Myth: Tort reform would lower costs

Fact: Research shows that malpractice claims have been steady for years yet medical malpractice insurance premiums have continued to rise. States that have enacted caps on damages have still not seen a decrease in costs as patient bills and premiums continue to rise. Even if the most aggressive tort reform plans were to pass, there would only be about a 0.5 percent savings on nationwide medical spending. Those savings would likely come at the cost of thousands of lives as preventable medical errors would increase without the civil justice system keeping them in check.

A better way to lower health care costs would be to prevent medical errors. Billions of dollars would be saved if we could reduce the number of medical malpractice incidents nationwide.

Myth: Medical boards can punish bad doctors so we don’t need punitive damages.

Fact: The accountability structures for medical professionals often fail to punish negligence as effectively as the civil justice system and personal injury attorneys. Two thirds of doctors with 10 or more negligence payments have never been formally disciplined. Half of all hospitals have never reported a single disciplinary action against one of their own doctors. The civil justice system holds doctors accountable when other oversight programs fail. It is not meant to scare off good doctors. In fact, just six percent of doctors are responsible for 60 percent of medical negligence. Weeding out this small number of negligent doctors will benefit the entire medical industry from overall costs to patient health.

Posted by Ryan Bradley | Permalink | Email This Post

Posted In: Choosing a Personal Injury Lawyer , Healthcare , Medical Malpractice , Missouri Personal Injury Lawyer News , Personal Injury News

Bookmark: