Should there be a Cap or a Floor on Medical Malpractice Claims?
Many groups have been arguing that there should be a cap on the amount of money a victim of medical malpractice should be awarded. The argument suggests that uncapped damage awards, at least in part, drive up medical costs and discourage doctors from entering certain medical specialties.
However, concerns on the other side of the debate include:
- Would caps lessen the responsibility a medical provider should have?
- Would this exclude an injury victim from receiving the money necessary to pay for their long term care?
- Would such damage limitations push the financial burden caring for individuals seriously injured by medical negligence back onto the tax payers?
- Would a "floor" on awards as opposed to a ceiling, achieve the same goals the proponents of caps seek?
Let us look at an example if there was a $100,000 floor. If a jury in a medical malpractice case did not award over $100,000, the plaintiff would receive no recovery. The plaintiff's counsel could then be held responsible for defense costs.
A major concern expressed by medical care providers is the cost of liability coverage and the expenses related to defending a malpractice claim regardless of whether or not a case has merit.
If the standard was "when a medical malpractice jury award is less than $100,000, the plaintiff's attorney is hereby responsible for defense costs," you would likely see a decrease in the number of medical malpractice cases pursued. In addition, those victims seriously injured because of medical negligence would still receive just and fair compensation for their injuries not limited by an artificial cap.
In Texas and other states, legislation was passed capping portions of medical malpractice damages at $250,000. Proponents of such legislation suggest that such caps have led to a decrease in health insurance premiums. While the connection between the two is subject to debate, the question remains whether a floor on medical malpractice damages might accomplish the same goal. In addition, would a floor insure that those who have suffered catastrophic injuries receive just compensation not artificially limited by a cap? Case in point, a woman went to the ER with abdominal pain. After a brief examination, she was sent home. Two days later, she was rushed to the emergency room with a burst colon. As a result of this misdiagnosis, the woman suffered organ failure requiring the transplantation of her abdominal wall. The pain and suffering this woman continues to endure and the permanent consequences of her injury are not hard to imagine. Should injuries of this nature be limited to $250,000?
Tort reform advocates claim that "frivolous" medical malpractice lawsuits are responsible for problems previously addressed. Again, this claim is debatable, however, might placing a floor on medical malpractice cases address the issue by causing plaintiff's attorneys to focus on clearly meritorious cases with significant damages?
