Missouri lawmakers to pursue medical liability limits
Sunday, January 6, 2013
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. (AP) — Missouri lawmakers have their eyes on reinstating liability limits for medical malpractice cases after the state Supreme Court struck down an existing cap on damages last summer.
Republicans claim a supermajority when the Legislature meets Wednesday to start the 2013 session, and GOP leaders say restoring the liability limits invalidated by the high court is needed to control health care costs and help keep doctors in Missouri.
"The judiciary, like a bunch of termites, has gone to work undermining that necessary tort reform," said Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder. "So we're going to have to go back and do the heavy lifting all over again."
A significant piece of the Republican effort to curb liability lawsuits was a cap of $350,000 for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Before that, Missouri had an inflation-adjusted cap of $579,000 for noneconomic damages against each defendant for each act of negligence.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled 4-3 the 2005 law was unconstitutional. The court's majority pointed to the state constitution's Bill of Rights, which states "the right of a trial by jury as heretofore enjoyed shall remain inviolate." Because Missourians had a common-law right to seek damages for medical malpractice claims when the constitution was enacted in 1820, the court concluded any limit on damages that restricts the jury's fact-finding role violates the constitutional right to trial by jury.
Supporters of reinstating the 2005 damages cap have proposed constitutional amendments and suggested legislation that would eliminate the common0law right to file a lawsuit over health care services while replacing it with a statutory right to sue.
The Missouri State Medical Association said the Legislature has been allowed to limit damages for a cause of action that it creates. Jeff Howell, the association's director of government relations and general counsel, said doctors' insurance premiums and health care costs are likely to increase without a limit on liability.
"Now we have unlimited risk, so there's really nowhere for premiums to go but up," Howell said. "And when you do that, then you have physicians that practice a lot defensive medicine, they worry more about getting sued and that increases the overall cost of health care."
Opponents of the damages cap contend the right to a jury trial is the lynchpin for all basic liberties and must be protected.
"It's a perilous thing to try to accomplish and one that flies in the face of the authors of our Missouri Constitution and frankly our United States Constitution and one that the citizens of this state should be very leery of," said Tim Dollar, the president of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. "The constitutional right to jury trial is something that's been a part of our system since its inception."
Dollar, a lawyer in Kansas City, said the cap is an attempt to carve out a single group and give immunity from negligence while allowing politicians to decide appropriate damages instead of a jury.
This past fall, the state Supreme Court in neighboring Kansas upheld that state's $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases.
A Missouri constitutional amendment would need to be approved by voters, and legislation passed by the Legislature would go to the governor.
Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon said Friday that it is necessary to look at the court case to determine whether a statutory or constitutional amendment approach is best. He noted Missouri had capped damages previously.
"I think what you need there is predictability in that insurance market, and so I'm not philosophically opposed to some limitation," he said.
Lawsuit limits amendment: SJR1 and HJR6
Lawsuit limits legislation: SB105 and HB112
Online:
Legislature: http://www.moga.mo.gov

Comments
Paroquet 4 months, 2 weeks ago
The doctors cite insurance premiums, the Legislators cite insurance premiums, seems to me the patients that have suffered from malpractice aren't the problem. Instead of legislating awards, which would by its very nature be arbitrary and capricious, instead legislate limits on premiums. The insurers can't go through all of the monies paid them in a single quarter or year, so make them hold capitalized left-over revenue from premiums right back into malpractice rather than pay dividends from the gain. Target the insurer, not the victim. If a doctor can't be covered because they might be a risk, or has to pay a higher premium based upon past history, hey, welcome to the world of your average citizen.
Who is the legislature trying to protect, in whose interests are they acting? It ain't you and me.
JCLifer 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Premiums are high because people want every little $3.00 prescription and bandaide covered. The purpose of insurance is to protect against catatrophies. Insurance with a $1,000 deductible, 50% co-pay, and maybe a $5,000 maximum out of pocket would make more sense and would not cost as much. Get rid of of all the routine little costs like doctor visits, RX coverage, etc. and watch how reasonable insurance premiums get.
Littleinvestor 4 months, 2 weeks ago
The questsion is not health insurance premiums. It's malpractice insurance premiums paid by doctors. The third leading cause of death in the U.S. is medical mistakes. That is why malpractice insurance is so high. I read somewhere a long time ago that 10 percent of doctors generate 90 percent of malpractice claims. Some high risk specialties such as brain surgery probably generate more malpractice claims than others but truly bad doctors need to be weeded out, which would benefit all doctors when it comes to malpractice insurance costs.
asb 4 months, 2 weeks ago
No, it's not you or me. All tort reform sounds great . . . "no more insane awards for hot coffee in the lap!" "No more ridiculous malpractice awards for poorly tucked tushes!" What tort reform language always comes down to is actually, "limit the consumer's protection from fools and incompetents!" The fact is, large awards are the best defense against malpractice, and the best assurance that otherwise careless practice is minimized. Doctors with good skills and history get lower premiums, like good drivers and homes meeting code. Let the jury decide, it's always worked.
Sequoia 4 months, 2 weeks ago
The problem is fee for service. Hospitals make more money by doing more procedures. All that matters is doing more procedures. Patients agree because third-party insurance (our premiums) will pay for it. Hospitals can bill whatever they want for anything from MRIs to crutches. Look at the long hours doctors work: their whole job is about more patients, more procedures. More more more. Bill bill bill.
This is why insurance premiums are so high. Much of the medical treatment is either unneccessary, overpriced, or both.
Look up statistics about botched procedures and infections: going to a hospital is one of the most dangerous things you can do in America.
3633 4 months, 2 weeks ago
Insurance companies never complain when they receive your money but when you file a claim they want to either go up or question your claim, the problem is with the insurance co and also the amount of procedures or test they do over and over.
Please review our Policies and Procedures before registering or commenting
Or login with:
OpenID