Senate OKs tighter malpractice law

Tuesday, April 22, 2003 | 11:06 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- Southern Nevada doctors persuaded the Senate, in a narrow vote, to approve a bill Monday tightening the law on medical malpractice. The bill attempts to slow down the rising cost of insurance and stop the departure of physicians from the state.

The Senate, in an 11-10 vote, gave preliminary approval to Senate Bill 97 that mirrors the California medical malpractice law. And if the bill is finally approved, it would abolish the malpractice law passed by the Legislature in special session in July 2002.

Scott Craigie, lobbyist for Las Vegas-area doctors, called it "one important step" in the path to medical malpractice reform. But he said there is a long way to go before final approval in the full Legislature.

The vote Monday was on an amendment and the Senate was scheduled to take a final vote today. But the outcome is expected to be the same as the one on the amendment.

The bill is likely to face a tougher time in the Assembly.

Bill Bradley, lobbyist for the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said the law approved last year was fair and provided the balance the insurance companies and doctors wanted to achieve stable premiums.

SB97 is almost an exact replica of the initiative petition pushed by physicians. That initiative will appear on the 2004 election ballot.

The bill now would put a firm cap of $350,000 on pain and suffering. It eliminates a section in the current law that allowed the amount to be raised if there was gross malpractice or exceptional circumstances.

SB97 limits the amount lawyers can receive in winning malpractice cases. And it allows doctors and their insurance companies to decide if periodic payments should be made to the injured party.

The Senate Judiciary Committee had studied SB97 and had made amendments to dovetail it to improve on the law passed last year. But the full Senate rejected the amendment.

"We have a medical crisis in Nevada," Sen. Dennis Nolan, R-Las Vegas, said.

Nolan said physicians are still leaving the state and said that SB97, in its original form, is an "opportunity to correct the problem."

Sen. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, who was chairman of the Judiciary Committee that proposed the amendment, said this Legislature should "not repudiate" the law that was passed last year and only became effective on Oct. 1.

Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, said the taxpayers were due a $200,000 refund that was the cost of the special session if the Legislature passes this bill to abolish the 2002 law.

The Judiciary Committee's amendment, which was rejected, called for a district judge to screen suits before they go to trial before another judge. The first judge would decide if they were frivolous and make a recommendation.

Amodei said this was a "more meaningful process." Amodei said the California malpractice law was adopted in 1973 and 1974 and it took 10 years before court challenges were completed. The testimony before his committee from Bob Byrd, the president of the state-associated insurance company in Nevada, was that rates were stable and may go down under the present law, the chairman said.

Amodei said testimony before his committee on putting limits on attorney fees does not have anything to do with lowering the insurance premiums.

Amodei and Care, both lawyers who do not handle medical malpractice cases, said this would be the first time price controls are imposed on a profession where no taxpayer dollars are involved.

Care said the doctors argue they want to see more of a judgment go to the injured patient rather than the attorney. But he said the doctors still want the non-economic judgments capped.

Craigie, in defense of the California malpractice law, said that it has worked everywhere it has been enacted. It has stabilized malpractice premiums and kept doctors in those states, Craigie said.

And in every state, there has been a major battle, he said.

Bradley said the vote in the Senate "ignored the rights of injured victims for the benefit of powerful insurance companies."

"They basically told senior citizens, stay-at-home parents and children that irrespective of the negligence of a physician or the devastating consequences to loved one -- they all decided their case has minimum value," Bradley said.

"In the case of a senior citizens, irrespective of the death of a spouse of 50 years, the Senate decided the case has a pre-determined value without hearing about the nature and quality of love in the relationship. They have decided the hard work of Nevada juries means nothing."