Consumer Law

Hepatitis C Outbreak Gives Nevada Residents a Different View of Lawsuit Caps

By Andy Hoffman

Back in 2002, Nevada was one of the first states that decided to cruelly cap compensation to injured medical malpractice patients?including catastrophically injured children?in response to a nationwide ?liability insurance crisis? that had nothing to do with the legal system (which is why the insurance industry could have cared less about this law and immediately raised rates.)

But at least the legislature included some degree of compassion in this law, allowing certain reasonable exceptions to the cap, like where there was ?gross negligence.?  Unfortunately, this wasn?t good enough for the medical establishment, which ran an initiative campaign and convinced Nevadans to give up their own rights by voting to remove even these limited exceptions to the cap.

What a difference a day makes, the old saying goes?but in Nevada, its more like what a difference 50,000 patients being unnecessarily exposed to the devastating liver ailment, Hepatitis C can make.

Last Friday, by an 8-6 vote, an Assembly committee approved a bill that allows patients who suffer ?gross medical negligence? (such as Hepatitis C exposure from ?reused syringes and vials?) to seek full compensation for their injuries.

Hopefully, this tragedy has provided something of a wake-up call to many Nevadans that one-size-fits-all caps are unfair , and don?t work.  The current bill may head to the general Assembly sometime this week.  Here?s hoping that it passes!

Full post as published by ThePopTort on April 13, 2009 (boomark / email).