WASHINGTON -- A plan pending in Congress to limit medical malpractice awards nationwide could imperil pieces of the fragile compromise state lawmakers, doctors and lawyers in Nevada forged this summer, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said.
"Let's give the Nevada plan a chance to work and not be so quick to pass legislation that undermines all state laws," Berkley said.
The House today began debate on tort reform legislation aimed at limiting awards from lawsuits brought by patients against doctors and hospitals. It has slim chances in the Senate, sources said.
It's not entirely clear how the law would apply to states such as Nevada that already have medical malpractice laws, and state courts likely would have to sort out those details.
Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., plans to vote for the congressional plan because he believes the fine print of the legislation makes it clear that state malpractice laws would not be superceded by the federal law, Gibbons spokeswoman Amy Spanbauer said.
"It really affects states that have no caps at all right now," Spanbauer said. "No one is looking to pre-empt Nevada law here."
After doctors' medical malpractice rates skyrocketed, the Nevada Legislature met in a special session this summer, passing a bill designed to lower premiums. The law takes effect Oct. 1.
The GOP House plan introduced by Rep. James Greenwood, R-Pa., and supported by top Republicans including Rep. Tom DeLay, R-Texas, and Dick Armey, R-Texas, differs from the Nevada plan in several important ways, Berkley said.
Both bills allow patients to sue for the full amount of financial, or "economic" losses, such as medical expenses or lost wages.
But the GOP bill caps pain and suffering, or "non-economic" damages at $250,000; the Nevada plan has a $350,000 cap.
Congressional staffers who have helped draft the bill say that if the legislation ever became law, state caps -- like the $350,000 in Nevada -- would indeed remain intact. However, patients likely would have to meet the tougher federal standards to prove doctor wrongdoing.
Berkley points to other differences. Unlike the Greenwood bill, the Nevada plan also allows a judge or jury to award more than the $350,000 non-economic liability cap in exceptional circumstances.
Berkley said the Nevada plan also differs from the Greenwood bill because it further trains district judges in malpractice issues; and establishes a patient safety committee at each medical facility in the state.
Another difference is that the Nevada plan does not address punitive damages. The GOP bill caps such awards at $250,000 when patients are able to prove under a strict federal standards that there is clear evidence of malicious intent.
Berkley on Tuesday asked the House Rules Committee to consider adopting the Nevada plan instead, but the panel rejected all changes to the GOP bill.
"This is a model -- a guidepost from which other states can work," Berkley told her colleagues of the Nevada plan.
Lawmakers began to square off along party lines today with Democrats, who often oppose tort reforms, generally opposing the bill; and Republicans supporting it.
The bill ultimately will help stabilize soaring medical malpractice insurance rates and give patients more access to doctors who are wary of taking cases for fear of lawsuits, said Rep. Tom Reynolds, R-N.Y. As doctors, insurance companies and lawyers nationwide haggle over solutions, "in the end, patients are the ones short-changed," he said.
But Rep. Alcee Hastings, D-Fla., said the bill would not bring insurance premiums down. Berkley, during debate, noted with interest that her fellow lawmakers were repeatedly citing Nevada as an example of the nation's medical malpractice crisis, but lawmakers were unwilling to implement Nevada's solution.
Berkley scolded the GOP-controlled House for wasting time on a bill that was doomed to die in the Senate, where Democrats would oppose it. She said "pure election-year politics" was driving bill.
"While the Congress is playing games on medical malpractice, the problems are only growing worse," Berkley said.
archive