In March of this year, the Supreme
Court of Florida held that the state law putting a cap on noneconomic
(pain and suffering) damages in medical malpractice cases of wrongful
death was unconstitutional (see blog,
March 15, 2014). The court in Estate of McCall v.
U.S. went on at length to produce studies, reports and testimony
that all found that caps on damages have little relevance to the
so-called medical liability crisis which is so often cited as the
need for damages caps.
One report cited by the court was a
study
conducted by Weiss Ratings, an independent research and analysis
firm covering the medical insurance industry. This report showed that
premiums in several high-risk specialties (internal medicine, general
surgery, obstetrics/gynecology) actually increased at a slower
rate in states that did not have damages caps compared to states that
did. In addition, in states without caps, medical liability insurance
premiums either remained static or declined more often than in states
where caps were in place. The conclusion drawn by the study's authors
was that other factors played a more important role in medical
malpractice premiums than caps on damages did.
The court found other reports that
deflated the myth of doctors fleeing states or areas of practice due
to malpractice concerns and insurance rates, including a report by
the federal General
Accounting Office. In addition, some of the court's best evidence
came from the insurance industry itself. In testimony before the
Florida Senate Judiciary Committee, the President of First
Professionals Insurance Company testified that a $500,000 cap on
noneconomic damages would accomplish "virtually nothing" to
reduce insurance premiums for medical malpractice. The president,
Robert White, testified that the insurance company had a more
positive experience in Florida when there were no damages caps than
it did in Missouri, which had caps at the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment