Injuryboard Commentary - Tort Reform

Health Care Shouldn't Be Politics As Usual

Mike Bryant — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 16:47:00 GMT

After the vote to send the health care bill to the Senate floor, there was a round of Republican tweets that predicted that the vote would end the careers of Senators that voted for the bill. That is the way to many of the misguided Senators see this issue. It's simply a political game.

They don't care about the 98,000 people that die each year due to medical errors. These are injuries that are preventable. They don't want to talk about the medical errors, or medical negligence, and the resulting medical malpractice.

Instead, they call for people to trade away their rights to get quality, affordable care. The CBO and GAO have stated time and time again that tort reform will do practically nothing to lower costs. They also found evidence that tort reform could lead to worse patient care. Less accountability will never mean better health care. Forty-six states have already passed some kind of tort reform, and costs continue to skyrocket. It clearly doesn’t work.

It all comes down to the old Bush/Rove anti lawyer mantra. The goal should be to lower costs and insure more people. But, it requires leaders that really want to fix the problem and not just use it to grandstand.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

As Heath Care Bill Goes To The Senate Floor Focus Needs To Be On The Consumer

Mike Bryant — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 09:35:00 GMT

This week, the U S Senate will be debating the Heath care bill. It is expected that the usual Republicans will spend most of their time trying to add amendments to change the civil justice system. To cap damages and bar the courtroom door to the average American. It's the old Bush/Rove plan to attack the lawyers.

They will not want to talk about what is really going on. There is no question that America’s health care system is in crisis. Over 40 million people are without health insurance and costs are skyrocketing. Harvard researchers published a paper that concluded that illness or medical bills contributed to 62 percent of bankruptcies in 2007, up from about half in 2001. More than three-fourths of those with medical debt had health insurance.

The focus should be on how to fix the system. How to lower costs and cover the uninsured. So-called tort reform, or limiting patients’ legal rights, will not accomplish either of these goals. It will only make it harder for those injured through no fault of their own to seek recourse.

According to the Institute of Medicine, 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, with countless more severely injured. Congress must put patients first, and not bargain away people’s legal rights.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Straight Talk on Tort Reform from Texas

Bret Hanna — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:20:37 GMT

Texas passed sweeping tort reform legislation in 2003 that, to a great extent, eliminated medical malpractice cases in the Lone Star State. Jennifer Bard is the Alvin R. Allison Professor of Law and director of the Health Law Program at Texas Tech University School of Law and an adjunct associate professor in the Department of Psychiatry, Texas Tech University School of Medicine, and she incorporates the Texas experience with tort reform into her analysis which concludes that such measures do not reduce health care costs. Here is her piece which appeared Saturday in the Houston Chronicle:

It's not as rare as you think for President Barack Obama and Gov. Sarah Palin to be in complete agreement on an issue of national importance.

In August, she wrote on her Facebook page that “we cannot have health care reform without litigation reform.” Speaking to the American Association of family physicians a few weeks later, President Obama said, “I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. ... So I am proposing that we move forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine.” Both of them are wrong. There is no evidence to suggest that limiting the rights of individuals to bring lawsuits will either lower the cost of health care or increase its quality. In fact, were this true, Texas would have the cheapest and best health care in the nation. The provisions of the tort reform legislation passed in 2003 have essentially eliminated medical malpractice suits. Indeed, things are so bad the lawyers for the insurance companies are complaining about the loss of business.

The only evidence we have that defensive medicine, defined as doing extra tests or surgery based on fear of litigation, drives up costs is from the least reliable source possible — the doctors themselves. Doctors' objections to law suits aren't financial — they are philosophical. Doctors are on the whole good people who devote their lives to helping others. Yet somewhere in their training they acquire the idea that this puts them beyond the constraints and hassles faced by every other professional. Lawsuits are time-consuming and embarrassing. They require explaining one's actions to a group of nondoctors, something doctors feel inappropriate. What doctors want isn't reform, it is an exemption. And that's just not how we do things in the United States.

As in all other cases involving a professional, every medical malpractice case depends on another physician's testimony that the offending doctor caused the patient's harm by acting below the standard of a reasonable physician in similar circumstances. To say that a jury isn't qualified to choose the testimony of one expert witness over another in a medical malpractice case is to say they shouldn't be allowed to do so in cases involving exploding tires because they are not automobile engineers. Unless Obama and Palin are interested in trading in our legal system for one with less citizen input — say one more like China's — then not only isn't litigation reform a necessary part of health care reform, it is no part of health care reform.

But don't throw out the baby with the bath water. Perhaps doctors are practicing defensive medicine, but that doesn't mean litigation reform will change their habits. First, it is hard to attribute overtesting to fear of litigation when the current payment system financially rewards doctors and hospitals for the number of tests they order and procedures they run, rather than on the time they spend talking to the patient to find out what's wrong. Second, it is entirely possible that those interested in selling them malpractice insurance have greatly inflated the risk. After all, given the relative rareness with which medical malpractice suits are brought, fear of litigation should no more be motivating a doctor's decisions than fear of alien abduction.

No one has ever suggested that civil litigation can directly reduce medical error. Reducing infection rates by adopting uniform protocols for hand-washing and instrument sterilization is not the same as pressuring a company to withdraw a defective product from the market. But our system of civil justice, as outlined in the United States Constitution, is not to blame for health costs or medical malpractice. Health reform can take place without litigation reform — both systems may be broken but they are not dependent on each other.

So perhaps if Obama and Palin really want to lower the cost of health care and improve its quality, they should be listening to economists and safety experts rather than either doctors or lawyers.

This analysis is spot on and from someone who does not appear to have "skin the game." Yes she is a lawyer, but not one that makes her living representing those injured by medical malpractice or working for the insurance companies that hire lawyers to defend doctors when claims are pursued against them for malpractice. We should consider her analysis in the objective light in which it is presented.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Bret Hanna

U S Senate Debate: Still No Talk About The 98,000 That Die Each Year

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:30:00 GMT

It's been interesting to watch the U S Senate debate today. There is more to go, so I'm sure they might just touch on just about everything. About 30 minutes ago, Senator McCain started the fraudulent claims that medical malpractice reform would make a significant difference. Sure, half of one percent savings by eliminating all claims would be a great difference. To your Insurance contributers Senator McCain.

Let's talk about the 98,000 people that die each year due to medical errors. Let's go after those numbers and reduce them. You do that and you will bring down malpractice claims. You will get rid of the few doctors that do a majority of the malpractice. You will save lives.

We will see how the rest of the night goes. Hopefully, it will get around to what is best for the American consumer.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Defensive Medicine: There Is Someone On The Defense All Right

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:07:00 GMT

The conservative blogs are loaded with talk of tort reform. We here at the Injuryboard continue to write about it. Guess the claim that no one is talking about it, is not only false, but intentionally misleading. It's interesting, how many of these posts get a comment with a link to the town hall site, which is claimed to have all of the answers. I spent some time looking at the link and it really does defy logic.

There is a section on defensive medicine and the very next section is entitled: "There Is No Proof That Threats of Litigation Deters Injuries" . What?????????????????? The reality is that while they use some facts, they stretch those facts and push frivolous arguments to come to a conclusion that fits for them. Even their damages charts distort the numbers to include extra fees that I would guess is the defensive medicine that actually the plaintiff was injured from. I would expect the executive compensation or medical charges costs includes even less for the injured consumer.

If you still have questions spend a little time with the American Association for Justices paper on the issue of the defensive medicine claim.

Ask the tough questions:

What tests are doctors doing that are actually not needed?

Have they ever found cancer or other medical life threatening issues with those tests?

Who got the money for those tests?

Why are so many people still dying in American hospitals?

Would more tests actually reduce the number of claims and keep more consumers alive?

My guess is that anyone claiming the existence of these tests really won't want to answer these questions. Mainly, because it simply doesn't happen and if it does they are involved in FRAUD. But, let's keep talking about it.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Report Says If You Eliminate Lawsuits The Defendants Save Their Money And Make More

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 15:05:00 GMT

Republicans are touting a report from the Congressional Budget Office that if you cut malpractice claims, there will be money saved. I would go further and say that if you eliminate all lawsuits, money will be saved. Defendants across the land could rejoice. But who will save the money?

- The wrongdoer who was going to be forced to pay and their insurance company?

Anyone else?

- Society won't because they will have to bare the burden of the injured who cannot seek relief from those who are negligent.

- The injured won't as they will have to bare what they can of the costs of their losses.

- Our system won't as a constitutional right of redress in court is stripped away.

So how about just a little bit of change? Maybe damage caps. Look at the list again and ask the same questions. You will get the same answers. Maybe you only strip the Constitutional protection a little bit, but hey it's only a right.

We do need to pay for a health system. So maybe the trade off needs to be looked at. How exactly does tort reform do that? Does it add money directly into the system the way that administrative and red tape changes do? Only if you accept the folly that fraudulent defensive medicine really exists. But accepting that as true, wouldn't you have to go back to eliminating the suits to make that really work?

Would the fantasy doctor who used to worry about lawsuits, so much that he did unneeded and criminal tests, now suddenly feel free to do the right thing? Who will that right thing benefit if we already know that this doctor doesn't seem to be bound by medical ethics?

I know we will get those dirty lawyers who give money to those dirty Democrats. I guess if you expect those two groups as being true enemies, I'm surprised you read this far. But since the Democrats would have to pass the bill and it will be up to us lawyers to still protect you when you are injured or wronged, you better go back to that original plan of eliminating every suit. "Start that revolution" , as Shakespeare is sometimes half quoted. Oh and make those wrongdoers oh so happy.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Health Care By The Numbers

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:58:00 GMT

The Congressional Budget Office released a report this past month that found: wait for it, that if we had tort reform money will be saved. Shocking, if you stop making the negligent and the grossly negligent pay for the damage they do, they get to keep their money. Those reports don't surprise me , nor do they scare me as a trial lawyer. Because, the question keeps going back to: saves money for whom?

The only way you get savings from the system is at best indirect. That the Medical Malpractice Insurance companies will do something that they have in the past been reluctant to do, which is lower premiums, and as a result, those savings will be passed on to the health Insurance companies, who will then pass those savings onto the consumers. The other potential savings will be that all of these doctors who are prescribing unnecessary and fraudulent tests will stop doing this and there will be savings there. This is a lot of very questionable gate keepers who we are expecting to do the right thing for others and not just for themselves.

But let's look at the CBO's numbers. Surprise, they are exactly what trial lawyers have been saying; one half of one percent of the whole system. Yes, this is the shocking number that some Republicans are claiming can be used to fix the whole medical reform mess. Now, I'll admit that 11 billion dollars is a lot of money, but what does it compare to?

There is the report from Washington University, which found that in 2007 there was $2.7 trillion (yes that's a trillion) spent on health care overall. So to start with, we are really talking about numbers that need to be compared, and not just blow horned by town meeting paid infiltrators.

The same report found that there is also $68 billion that is lost in fraud. That number works out to the fraud being 80% by the medical providers ( the ones that we want to give the savings back), 10% by consumers, and balance by others such as the insurance companies themselves.

Let's look at the Insurance numbers as the American Association for Justice did recently,they found:

Today, while premiums and health care costs skyrocket, malpractice insurers have average profits higher than 99 percent of Fortune 500 companies.

The key findings of the report, which analyzes the annual financial statements of the 10 largest U.S. medical malpractice insurers, include:

The average profit of these insurance companies is higher than 99 percent of all Fortune 500 companies and 35 times higher than the Fortune 500 average for the same time period.

Malpractice insurers have seen their profit margins range from 5.9 percent to 74.8 percent, with an average of 31.2 percent.

Medical malpractice insurers have underestimated profits and overestimated losses, creating overblown insurance “crises” to garner support for limiting patients’ legal rights. Then years later after the “crises” abated, revised filings show the companies were never in the financial peril they claimed.

After overestimating losses, insurers have since reported that losses over the last five years have been approximately 13.5 percent lower than initially reported.

By overestimating losses, companies have underestimated profits. Insurers averaged about 5.1 percent higher profits last year and 12.4 percent higher profits two years ago; these levels of profits will likely rise as upward revisions are made.

Medical negligence laws were passed under false pretenses. Overblown reported losses were used by the insurance industry to justify new measures restricting the rights of those injured by medical negligence.

Yep, there is gobs of money being made, and I would bet they are funneling right into those U S Chamber ads that are calling for tort reform and fighting against a system they just love to gouge.

There are far better ways to fix this system and to pay for it without changes that deny people their constitutional protections.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

The Attacks On The Health Care Plan: Looks Like They Were Planned Out

Mike Bryant — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 09:48:58 GMT

Are you torn with all of the health care debates? What is being talked about and what isn't? Who is behind what and what do the leaders of our country really want to do? Who has bought off who and why is anyone saying that they would rather keep things the way they are?

I've talked to enough people about this issue to know that many people are confused about why this is such a battle. Why the plan isn't just to sit down and to work something out and get a plan put together. It's been interesting to discuss with people the role that trial lawyers are playing in the issue and also the roles of the insurance companies. I, like many of the people here at the Injuryboard, have been out front talking about the issues every chance we get.

What was illuminating was to run across the game plan of the opposition to any change. Rolling Stone recently uncovered this interesting memo:

The 10 Rules For The Stopping Of The "WASHINGTON TAKEOVER” Of Health care

(1) Humanize your approach. Abandon and exile ALL references to the “health care system.” From now on, health care is about people. Before you speak, think of the three components of tone that matter most: Individualize. Personalize. Humanize.

(2) Acknowledge the “crisis” or suffer the consequences. If you say there is no health care crisis, you give your listener permission to ignore everything else you say. It is a credibility killer for most Americans. A better approach is to define the crisis in your terms. “If you’re one of the millions who can’t afford health care, it is a crisis.” Better yet, “If some bureaucrat puts himself between you and your doctor, denying you exactly what you need, that’s a crisis.” And the best: “If you have to wait weeks for tests and months for treatment, that’s a health care crisis.”

(3) “Time” is the government health care killer. As Mick Jagger once sang, “Time is on Your Side.” Nothing else turns people against the government takeover of health care than the realistic expectation that it will result in delayed and potentially even denied treatment, procedures and/or medications. “Waiting to buy a car or even a house won’t kill you. But waiting for the health care you need – could. Delayed care is denied care.”

(4) The arguments against the Democrats’ health care plan must center around “politicians,” “bureaucrats,” and “Washington” … not the free market, tax incentives, or competition. Stop talking economic theory and start personalizing the impact of a government takeover of health care. They don’t want to hear that you’re opposed to government health care because it’s too expensive (any help from the government to lower costs will be embraced) or because it’s anti-competitive (they don’t know about or care about current limits to competition). But they are deathly afraid that a government takeover will lower their quality of care – so they are extremely receptive to the anti-Washington approach. It’s not an economic issue. It’s a bureaucratic issue.

(5) The health care denial horror stories from Canada & Co. do resonate, but you have to humanize them. You’ll notice we recommend the phrase “government takeover” rather than “government run” or “government controlled” It’s because too many politician say “we don’t want a government run health care system like Canada or Great Britain” without explaining those consequences. There is a better approach. “In countries with government run health care, politicians make YOUR health care decisions.THEY decide if you’ll get the procedure you need, or if you are disqualified because the treatment is too expensive or because you are too old. We can’t have that in America.”

(6) Health care quality = “getting the treatment you need, when you need it.” That is how Americans define quality, and so should you. Once again, focus on the importance of timeliness, but then add to it the specter of “denial.” Nothing will anger Americans more than the chance that they will be denied the health care they need for whatever reason. This is also important because it is an attribute of a government health care system that the Democrats CANNOT offer. So say it. “The plan put forward by the Democrats will deny people treatments they need and make them wait to get the treatments they are allowed to receive.”

(7) “One-size-does-NOT-fit-all.” The idea that a “committee of Washington bureaucrats” will establish the standard of care for all Americans and decide who gets what treatment based on how much it costs is anathema to Americans. Your approach? Call for the “protection of the personalized doctor-patient relationship.” It allows you to fight to protect and improve something good rather than only fighting to prevent something bad.

(8) WASTE, FRAUD, and ABUSE are your best targets for how to bring down costs. Make no mistake: the high cost of health care is still public enemy number one on this issue – and why so many Americans (including Republicans and conservatives) think the Democrats can handle health care better than the GOP. You can’t blame it on the lack of a private market; in case you missed it, capitalism isn’t exactly in vogue these days. But you can and should blame it on the waste, fraud, and abuse that is rampant in anything and everything the government controls.

(9) Americans will expect the government to look out for those who truly can’t afford health care. Here is the perfect sentence for addressing cost and the limited role for government that wins you allies rather than enemies: “A balanced, common sense approach that provides assistance to those who truly need it and keeps health care patient-centered rather than government-centered for everyone.”

(10) It’s not enough to just say what you’re against. You have to tell them what you’re for. It’s okay (and even necessary) for your campaign to center around why this health care plan is bad for America. But if you offer no vision for what’s better for America, you’ll be relegated to insignificance at best and labeled obstructionist at worst. What Americans are looking for in health care that your “solution” will provide is, in a word, more: “more access to more treatments and more doctors…with less interference from insurance companies and Washington politicians and special interests.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading this list, it seems clear that there are a group of people who don't want to get anything done. The people who ran the country for eight years and put profits in front of people and drove many parts of the economy into the dirt. It is made up of people who scream capitalism all the way to the bailout window. People who need to either come to the table and talk sense or get out of the way and let those who care about the consumer put together something that will truly make a difference.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Minnesota Association For Justice's Statement On AP Medical Malpractice Poll

Mike Bryant — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:56:09 GMT

ASSOCIATED PRESS POLL: MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT TO SUE FOR MEDICAL ERROR

Minnesota legal group says the AP poll oversimplifies the malpractice debate and ignores accountability of insurers and providers.

(Minneapolis, MN)- The Minnesota Association for Justice (MNAJ) responded to results released today from an Associated Press (AP) poll which claims that a majority in the U.S. approve of stricter controls on individuals seeking accountability for medical malpractice as inaccurate, misleading and does little to enhance the debate on health care reform.

Michael A. Bryant an attorney practicing in Minnesota and the current President of the Minnesota Association for Justice said the poll, conducted by Stanford University and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation for the AP, “asks the question in a way that the respondent is to believe that limits on malpractice accountability would substantially lower consumer insurance and health care costs in the United States. The problem is there is simply no evidence to support either outcome.”

Claims that restricting legal remedies for medical malpractice would lower insurance rates for physicians and hospitals is in direct conflict with data released last month by the Medical Liability Monitor, a respected annual publication of malpractice rates across the country. The Medical Liability Monitor’s research show that there is no relation to rates between states that cap damage awards and states that don’t—and in many cases states that limit damages actually have significantly higher premiums.
“This poll distracts from concrete facts that show that limiting our ability to be fully compensated for negligent sub-standard medical care will not result in insurance premiums reductions,” Bryant added.

Minnesota does not limit the amount of actual damages a jury can award, and in 2008, ranked 50th lowest in medical malpractice insurance premiums. Minnesota’s courts have seen a 40% decline in medical malpractice filings, while leading the nation in many health care outcome measures.

“As the debate on health care reform heats up in the coming days, policy makers must embrace a comprehensive set of solutions that focus on quality care, patient safety, accountability for providers and insurers, and protection of all patients in the health care system.” Bryant stated.

The Minnesota Association for Justice is a professional association of attorneys who represent Minnesotans wrongfully harmed or injured in person, property or human rights. MNAJ defends the rights guaranteed by the Constitutions and laws of the United States and Minnesota, foremost among them the right to a trial by jury and advocates for public policy to enhance consumer rights and protection.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Bryant

Tort Reform: Insurance Lobbyists Want To Take Away Your Rights

Brett Emison — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:51:52 GMT

According to Scientific American, preventable medical mistakes kill 200,000 American each year. Despite all those deaths, insurance company lobbyists want you to give up your right to a jury trial if one of these accidents happens to you or your family member.

The U.S. Constitution and State Constitutions grant you the right to a trial by jury.

Article III, Section 2: Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

7th Amendment: Trial by Jury in Civil Cases

In Suits at common law. . ., the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. . . .

Why would anyone give up his or her constitutional right to a trial by a jury of peers?

Why would we give up a fundamental constitutional right in order to protect negligence that kills 200,000 people per year? Do insurance lobbyists have us so scared that we would give up a fundamental right deemed so important that it was included in the original Bill of Rights?

What are we really scared of? Some facts from allbusiness.com:

Average liability premiums across internists, general surgeons and OB/GYNs are nearly identical for states with or without caps on medical malpractice damages

Average liability premiums for OB/GYNs are nearly identical for states with or without caps

Average liability premiums for general surgeons are nearly 10% higher in states with caps

Average liability premiums for internal medicine are nearly 10% higher in states with caps

"Malpractice insurers promised tort law changes would lower premiums, yet it has not happened."

If caps on damages and keeping valid lawsuits out of court do not reduce malpractice rates for doctors or the premiums that you and I pay for health insurance, what does it do? According to the Columbia Tribune and Kansas City Business Journal, it lines the pockets of insurance companies.

Family health care premiums for employer-provided insurance in Missouri will have risen an estimated 3.6 times faster than workers' earning from 2000 through 2009, according to a Families USA report.

Family health insurance premiums for employer-provided coverage will have risen 82.5 percent in the period, whereas median earnings have risen 22.8 percent. . . .

***

Families USA said that higher insurance premiums have been coupled with "thinner" coverage and higher deductibles, copayments and co-insurance.

Pollack blamed rising premiums on "wasteful heath care spending, an almost-unregulated insurance market, a dramatic drop in competition in the insurance market and costs shifted from the uninsured to the insured, termed a 'hidden health tax.'"

In Missouri, those with employer-provided health care are paying more money for less coverage. . . even though Missouri passed dramatic tort reforms in 2005. According to the Columbia Tribune, after the tort reform passed, medical malpractice insurance companies increased their profits of couple percent to nearly a 25 percent return on investment.

While the insurance companies make money, malpractice victims will not see their right to a day in court.

"Effectively, the courthouse door has been slammed in their face by the non-economic cap put on in Missouri," [said a Missouri attorney] who represents plaintiffs in medical malpractice litigation. "What was pushed as stopping the windfall for the plaintiffs has turned into a windfall for the insurance companies."

***

With the cap in place on economic damages, little can be recovered when the plaintiffs are children, nonworking mothers, the retired and the disabled because there are no wages or long-term earnings involved in the computation of what can be recovered.

In Missouri, tort reformers have placed almost no value on the life of children, stay-at-home moms, the elderly and the disabled. Isn't the life of a stay-at-home mom worth as much (if not more) as a corporate executive? In a Missouri medical case, it is not. What's wrong with this country when legislators bow down to lobbyists at the expense of mothers, children, the disabled and the elderly.

Unfortunately for one insurance lobbyist, he learned his lesson too little too late. Frank Cornelius wrote a piece entitled, Crushed By My Own Reform, which was published in several major newspapers including the New York Times and the Dallas Morning News. My citation comes from the Dallas Morning News, October 10, 1994, Monday, HOME FINAL EDITION, at p. 13A.

In 1975, I helped persuade the Indiana Legislature to pass what was acclaimed as a pioneering reform of the medical malpractice laws: a $500,000 cap on damage awards, and elimination of all damages for pain and suffering.

I argued successfully that such limits would reduce health-care costs and encourage physicians to stay in Indiana _ the same sort of arguments that now underpin the medical industry's call for national malpractice reform.

Today, from my wheelchair, I rue that accomplishment.

***

The cost of this cascading series of medical debacles is painful to tally:

. I am confined to a wheelchair and need a respirator to keep breathing. I have not been able to work.

. I have continuous physical pain in my legs and feet, prompting my doctor to hook me up to an apparatus that drips morphine. My pain used to rate a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10. Now it's about a 4.

. Twice, I have received last rites from my church.

. My marriage is ending, and the emotional fallout on our five children has been difficult to witness, to say the least.

. At the age of 49, I am told that I have less than two years to live.

My medical expenses and lost wages, projected to retirement age if I should live that long, come to more than $ 5 million. Claims against the hospital and physical therapist have been settled for a total of $500,000 _ the limit on damages for a single incident of malpractice.

***

The kicker, of course, is that I fought to enact the very law that limits my compensation. All my suffering might have been worthwhile, on some cosmic scale, if the law had accomplished its stated purpose. But it hasn't.

Indiana's health care costs increased 139.4 percent from 1980 to 1990 _ just about the national average. The state ranked 32nd in per-capita health care spending in 1990 _ the same as in 1980.

It's understandable that the damage cap has done nothing to curb health-care spending; the two have almost nothing to do with each other.

***

The prospect that these reforms" will be enacted is frightening. Make no mistake, damage caps are arbitrary, wholly disregarding the nature of the injury and the pain experienced by the plaintiff.

They make it harder to seek and recover compensation for medical injuries; extend unwarranted special protection to the medical industry; and remove the only effective deterrent to negligent medical care, since the medical profession has never done an effective job of disciplining negligent doctors.

Medical negligence cannot be reduced simply by restricting consumers' legal rights. That will happen only when the medical industry begins to effectively police its own.

I don't expect to live to see that day.

We should not make the mistake that Frank Cornelius made. We should not give up our constitutional rights to protect ourselves from some imaginary boogeyman. Stand up for your rights. Protect yourself and your family.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brett Emison