Editorial: Bill would weaken state court

Tuesday, Oct. 1, 2002 | 9:05 a.m.

A national tort-reform bill that has been passed in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives defies their traditional party line. Normally, they go on at great length about the necessity of decentralized government regarding most day-to-day issues unrelated to national defense. Perhaps this bill is more a testament to efficient lobbying by insurers and doctors than it is to good government.

The bill would override the authority of states to set their own standards for their juries and courts when deciding medical malpractice cases. For example, the bill would limit juries to awards of no more than $250,000 for noneconomic damages. A physician's total financial culpability would be limited to the percentage of error for which he was responsible. Jurors would be told of other insurance payments the victim has received. A timetable for lawsuits would be set. In all ways relating to a medical malpractice lawsuit, federal standards and procedures would dictate a state's legal procedure. The role of state courts would be reduced to administering the federal dictates.

A national standard has its benefits. It would bring more stability to health care by ending the threats by doctors to pack up and leave for a more insurance-friendly state. But we reject the notion that because federal money and interstate commerce are involved, the federal government has the right to encroach upon state courts. Nevada, for example, has its own cap for noneconomic damages -- set at $100,000 higher than the House cap. As with state tort reform, the federal bill does not guarantee lower medical malpractice insurance rates for doctors. But it does guarantee a huge loss of state authority.

archive