Consumer Law

Huff Post Repost: A Medical Liability Reform That Will Actually Work

By Joe Consumer

On Wednesday, the U.S. House Judiciary Committee began marking up a bill (H.R. 5) that is a top priority for some in the new Republican House -- federalizing state medical malpractice laws by taking away the legal rights of sick and injured patients. (Incredibly, Tea Party Caucus member Rep. Ted Poe (R-TX) raged against the bill, saying it violated the Constitution, forcing the markup into next week.)

I actually testified against this bill at Judiciary hearings on January 20, 2011. Committee Chair Lamar Smith (R-TX) laid out his goals for the legislation pretty clearly -- to stop "frivolous" medical malpractice lawsuits. We hear about these so-called "frivolous lawsuits" over and over again -- at the state level, in Congress, and even lately, from our president.

Ok, who doesn't oppose frivolous lawsuits? Yet there are powerful reasons to oppose H.R. 5. (See this consumer and patient safety group letter.) Among those reasons: bills like H.R. 5, which propose "caps" on non-economic (i.e. quality of life) compensation, have nothing to do with "frivolous" lawsuits. They hurt only the most seriously injured patients, who have already proven a hospital or doctor's negligence. There is nothing frivolous about those cases. Even Victor Schwartz, general counsel of the American Tort Reform Association in Washington, admitted to the subscriber-only insurance trade publication, Business Insurance, that H.R. 5 "does not mention sanctioning frivolous lawsuits."

Keep reading.

Full post as published by ThePopTort on February 09, 2011 (boomark / email).