Malpractice bill clears committee

Thursday, April 10, 2003 | 10:54 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- A scaled-down medical malpractice bill that doesn't satisfy either side cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee today on a 4-3 vote.

"I don't think Senate Bill 97 will stem the flow of physicians leaving Nevada," said Scott Craigie, a representative for Southern Nevada doctors pushing for stricter laws on to stop the spiraling insurance costs of physicians.

But he said there are other bills in the Legislature. And SB97 can be amended in the Assembly to include some things sought by the doctors.

Bill Bradley, representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers, said SB97 will "significantly drive up the costs" of processing medical malpractice suits. "It's a tremendous obstacle to the victim," said Bradley.

Bradley was referring to a section that will require a district judge to now hear both sides of the case to decide if the injured party has a legitimate claim before the suit goes to trial.

The last special session of the Legislature abolished a screening panel composed of doctors and lawyers who reviewed malpractice claims before they went to court. That was at the suggestion of the doctors.

The Judiciary Committee decided on a new screening mechanism, using a district judge. The decision of the judge could be introduced at trial, which would be before another judge.

Bradley said that would mean a tremendous cost to both the injured party and the physician. In effect, it would mean there would be a mini-trial before a regular trial before a jury.

Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, said this section also imposes an additional burden on district judges without even asking their opinion about it first.

Care also said these medical malpractice laws will end up before the Nevada Supreme Court for a ruling "no matter what we do."

Sen. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, the chairman of the committee, presented a new legal opinion from legislative counsel that there is a "hard cap" on pain and suffering damages of $350,000 per person.

The special session of the Legislature enacted a medical malpractice reform bill that apparently said the cap could be raised in cases of gross malpractice or in exceptional circumstances.

But the legal opinion from attorney Brad Wilkinson said the $350,000 limit would apply in both these instances. Amodei said based on the legal opinion there is a "hard cap on every conceivable category area of malpractice."

The bill also calls for an insurance company to pay a penalty to a physician if in a case of malpractice, the doctor wants to settle but the company refuses. If the final judgment is more than the settlement, the insurance company will be penalized.

The Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor is also working on other medical malpractice insurance changes and should vote out its bill Friday.

Doctors in Southern Nevada started an initiative petition to change Nevada's law to be similar to the one in California. The Legislature rejected that proposal and it will now be on the ballot in November 2004.

SB97, if approved by the full Legislature, would be repealed if the doctors' initiative is passed by the voters. Voting against SB97 were committee members Care, Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, and Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon.