Monday, July 29, 2002 | 11:09 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- Gov. Kenny Guinn was expected this morning to introduce a tort reform package before the special legislative session in an effort to curb rising medical malpractice insurance rates, including a $350,000 cap on damages for pain and suffering.
Guinn spent the morning negotiating with lawmakers on the most contentious issue of the debate -- a cap on pain and suffering.
After a last round of talks, Guinn was scheduled to introduce his bill around 11 a.m. and then address lawmakers.
Guinn spokesman Greg Bortolin said this morning that a deal with Assembly Democrats to come to an agreement with the governor was "imminent," raising hopes that the Legislature would be discussing a unified bill. The question that remained was whether the $350,000 cap would include exceptions, such as for death because of gross negligence, stroke or brain damage, Bortolin said.
"He's going to address the Legislature and explain his recommendations," Bortolin said. "He's going to take everybody back to when St. Paul Cos. pulled out of Nevada last year. He's going to talk about the Medical Liability Association of Nevada, which he created He'll talk about how MLAN reduced rates for surgeons and obstetricians by 18 percent And then he'll take us to today."
The situation was very fluid this morning, with ongoing negotiations occurring in the governor's office.
One meeting the governor had this morning was with Pete Ernaut, his former chief of staff and a lobbyist for physicians seeking tort reform, and Billy Vassiliadis, a lobbyist for attorneys fighting tort reform. Also in on the meetings this morning were Las Vegas attorney Dean Hardy and Reno attorney Bill Bradley, both past presidents of the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association.
The governor then met with Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, Assemblyman Joe Dini, D-Yerington, and Assembly Minority Leader Lynn Hettrick, R-Gardnerville.
"It's still continuing," Buckley said of the negotiations before her meeting with Guinn. "What we're trying to accomplish is to have one bill instead of separate bills from the Assembly, Senate and governor. We're working toward a bill that will incorporate all of our ideas."
Bortolin said it was a certainty that Guinn would propose a $350,000 cap that could not be adjusted annually for inflation.
"The governor will introduce a bill and the cap will be $350,000," Bortolin said this morning.
Ernaut, Vassiliadis and the lawyers broke off their early morning negotiations without reaching an agreement on exceptions to the cap. But Bortolin said negotiations on exceptions continued between Guinn and Democratic lawmakers.
Larry Matheis, executive director of the Nevada State Medical Association, said today that the proposed $350,000 cap "starts the discussion."
"It basically agrees with our basic point, that there has to be a limit on non-economic damages," Matheis said. "It is not the $250,000 we recommend, which has worked so well in California. The higher the cap the less effective it is at restricting increases in premiums. The rise in non-economic (jury) awards has been the most significant increase in recent years."
Lawyers, however, have disagreed with that argument. Instead, they blame the malpractice insurance dilemma on the pullout of St. Paul, the Minnesota company that had 60 percent of Nevada's medical malpractice market. Lawyers also say insurers had to raise premiums in the past year to cover severe investment losses.
Lawmakers had negotiated into the wee hours Sunday night, with the Assembly Democrats holding their own caucus.
A major sticking point separating Republicans and Democrats has been the size of the cap that would be placed on damages for pain and suffering.
Guinn met Thursday in Reno with Republican state senators and discussed the possibility of proposing the $350,000 cap, which is $100,000 more than what doctors are seeking. Physicians want lawmakers to adopt the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act adopted by California in 1975, which includes a $250,000 cap.
But a Republican source said Sunday that unless a deal is struck with the Democrats the GOP may be willing to go as high as $500,000 as long as the cap cannot be adjusted for inflation. Anything above $500,000 would be rejected by the Republicans because a cap that high would not have the desired effect of lowering insurance rates, the source said.
Of the 21 states that have caps on non-economic damages, only six exceed $500,000.
Assembly Democrats have been preparing their own bill in case a deal could not be worked out with Guinn. Details of the Democratic bill were not released prior to the start of the special session. But a Democratic source said last week that one possibility being discussed was a $750,000 cap that could be adjusted annually for inflation.
Late Sunday night Buckley said that negotiations were still under way and were to last until 1 this morning if necessary.
"I'm still hopeful for a resolution because in the end we are going to leave Carson City with a bill," Buckley said. "I'd say that if there is going to be consensus, then it has to be on the whole range of actions that are being discussed. It's just not one reform that will make things better."
The Republican source said the GOP, which holds a 12-9 majority in the state Senate could pass a bill as early as Tuesday afternoon and certainly no later than Wednesday morning by putting strict time limits on testimony.
If the Assembly Democrats, who control the lower house 27-15, come out with their own bill, a legislative conference committee would have to be convened to iron out the differences between the Senate and Assembly bills. Under that scenario, the Republican source said it could take more than a week to hammer out a resolution. Guinn has said he would like the special session to last no more than three days.
Guinn announced his proposals on Friday but did not reveal specifics on a cap at that time. Instead, he left that issue open for discussion among lawmakers through the weekend.
Guinn's proposals bear some resemblance to California's tort reform law favored by doctors. But one notable exception is that Guinn is not proposing a sliding fee scale for plaintiff attorney contingency fees, as is the case in California. Attorneys in Nevada typically receive as much as 40 percent of a settlement or jury award, whereas in California, the percentage given to the attorney is reduced as the amount of damages increases.
The state Senate is preparing to meet as a committee of the whole, meaning all 21 senators will be in on discussions of proposed bills. The Assembly has formed a 15-member select panel chaired by Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, to consider legislation in the lower house.
archive
