Tort reform refers to changes that are proposed to tort and personal injury laws. Tort laws are those laws that allow one private citizen to sue another who has injured him. Under the tort rules, a plaintiff who files a tort action, or "civil suit" can recover compensation for a variety of different harms. One of those harms- medical malpractice- is the main subject of tort reform efforts.
What Is Tort Reform?
Tort reform involves placing caps on damages that may be awarded in personal injury cases. Typically, in a personal injury claim such as for medical malpractice, a plaintiff receives money for:
1. Medical treatment costs (economic damages)
2. Lost income/earnings (economic damages)
3. Pain and suffering (non-economic damages)
4. Emotional distress (non-economic damages)
5. Punitive damages (to punish a defendant)
2. Lost income/earnings (economic damages)
3. Pain and suffering (non-economic damages)
4. Emotional distress (non-economic damages)
5. Punitive damages (to punish a defendant)
Tort reforms usually try to limit non-economic damages, punitive damages or both.
Arguments for Tort Reform
Those who argue in favor of tort reform assert that caps on damages are essential to keeping medical costs down. There is a belief that juries may be overly sympathetic to injured victims of medical malpractice and award damages that are out-of-bounds with what is appropriate. The risk of high damage awards with uncapped damages results in medical malpractice insurance being quite expensive, especially for certain specialties like obstetrics since so much can go wrong with delivering a baby. Doctors, hospitals and health care providers have to pay more money for malpractice insurance, so as a result, medical care costs more because this cost has to be born by consumers. Further, it is also argued in some cases that doctors make decisions for fear of lawsuits sometimes, rather than solely on what they believe is best. For instance, a c-section may be ordered for the delivery of a child because the obstetrician is so frightened of being sued.
Arguments Against Tort Reforms
Equally compelling are the arguments against tort reforms. Counterarguments assert that it is not fair to cap damages and prevent plaintiffs from getting a full amount that they are due for their doctor's negligence. It is also asserted that doctors have more of an incentive to be careful with uncapped damages, resulting in better medical care for all. Some argue that tort reform efforts are unconstitutional, and in fact some state constitutions do have prohibitions against these types of caps. Finally, it has been asserted in some cities- like California- that plaintiffs are having a hard time finding lawyers to take malpractice case. California has a $250,000 cap on non-ecomonic damages, and attorneys in malpractice cases are paid a percentage of damages as their only fee. Since malpractice is expensive to prove, this cap on damages acts as a potentially significant hindrance to lawyers taking on malpractice cases. When plaintiffs can't find lawyers, doctors don't get sued and there is even less accountability or incentive to refrain from negligence.
What States Have Caps?
While there are plenty of arguments on both sides, the fact is many states have instituted caps. A table of the rules regarding damage caps is below but it is important to note two things: 1) these caps adjust annually for inflation so the damage award may be different at the time of your reading and 2) laws in this area are evolving. Some states have pending cases where the constitutionality of caps is being considered while other states may decide to pass damage caps as well. The table, then, should be considered a guide but should not be used as your definitive answer on whether malpractice or other damages are capped in your state:
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق