Lawmakers praise tort reform legislation

Friday, Aug. 2, 2002 | 11:07 a.m.

While doctors wondered about how the bill the state Legislature passed would help ease the medical malpractice crisis, lawmakers and bill supporters praised the legislation and tried to educate the public and the medical community about the bill.

Gov. Kenny Guinn hailed the bill, saying that "for the first time in Nevada's history, we have achieved comprehensive tort reform."

"The real winners are the citizens of Nevada," said Guinn, who plans to sign the bill into law in Las Vegas next week. "This legislation brings predictability and stability to doctors' insurance, which in time will lower rates and preserve Nevada as a desirable place to practice medicine."

Both the Assembly and the Senate passed a compromise bill early Thursday morning. Assembly Speaker Richard Perkins, D-Henderson, said the bill is "absolutely going to help" doctors.

"This is a stricter bill than the doctors asked us to pass the first day," said Perkins, who said that Nevada will have the fourth lowest cap of the 21 states that have caps.

One group was pushing the bill as "Nevada MICRA," a reference to the California law -- MICRA, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act -- that the doctors had asked for in negotiations.

Instead, the bill has a cap of $100,000 higher on damages from pain and suffering. Some doctors criticized that and said law contains big loopholes.

The exceptions under the cap are for "gross malpractice," "disregard for and indifference to the safety and welfare of the patient," and "exceptional circumstances" as determined by a judge.

If the jury comes back with a verdict of more than $350,000 in non-economic damages, the judge by "clear and convincing evidence" must find the case and the damage make up "an exceptional circumstance."

"Clear and convincing evidence" is just below the standard needed to convict a person of a crime. That standard is the evidence must show "beyond a reasonable doubt" the person is injured. The clear and convincing evidence is a higher standard than the one used in a civil trial where all that is needed for a judgment is a preponderance of the evidence.

Jim Wadhams, attorney for the American Insurance Association, said criticism of the bill on the exceptions was "shortsighted."

"People are focusing on the exception to the cap rather than the whole," he said. "This isn't the time to be demonstrating no matter what. This is a major change and it is going to take time."

Wadhams called the bill "valuable and an improvement in the market place."

The Nevada legislation, he said, is probably not as strict as MICRA but it will have a positive impact on the market, although he said it may take a few years before the impact is seen.

Perkins said he thinks the bill is "going to do great things for doctors' medical malpractice insurance."

But Perkins noted there was criticism from the medical community Thursday in Las Vegas. He said because doctors aren't trained in the law, they don't understand the deal that was struck in Carson City.

"They're new to the process and they don't understand what happened," Perkins said. "Most of them haven't read the bill and the national insurance companies are trying to (say) it won't work."

Sen. Randolph Townsend, R-Reno, said the doctors "gave us the answer as MICRA. We looked for a solution that is best for everybody."

He noted the bill was designed to bring stability to the insurance market and said that will take time. But he noted another sign as proof that the deal will work.

"Are the insurance carriers protesting?" he asked. "No."