Editorial: Scales of justice tip wrong way

Wednesday, April 23, 2003 | 8:58 a.m.

Nevada's medical malpractice crisis reached the boiling point last summer. A few doctors closed their practices permanently. Others stopped taking new patients. The trauma center at University Medical Center closed for 10 days when surgeons said they couldn't afford the risk of a malpractice suit. The tactics left legislators with sackfuls of mail from worried and panicky constituents. The solution was a new law, passed in a special session of the Legislature.

Before the session began, a legislative subcommittee held hearings. Not everyone who testified wanted to concede to the doctors' demands. The doctors, whose clamor had led to the special session, wanted the focus of any new law squarely on the lawyers. The insurance companies, whose sudden and monumental increases of malpractice premiums had led to the crisis, were pinning the blame on a few large jury awards. The doctors took it from there, insisting upon a medical-malpractice law that would cap jury awards for pain and suffering at $250,000. Several victims of medical malpractice testified against such a law at the hearings. Their point -- that it's unconscionable to cap awards in cases of death and severe injury to loved ones -- was reflected in Gov. Kenny Guinn's proposal for how the law should address any cap.

The governor proposed a $350,000 cap, but also proposed several specific exceptions, including cases involving death, brain damage, paraplegia, blindness, loss of limbs and permanent sterility. The Legislature agreed with Guinn on the amount of the cap but whittled the exceptions to two. The cap could be waived for "gross malpractice" and for "exceptional circumstances" as ruled by a judge.

Now, the Republican-controlled Senate would remove even those two exceptions. Senate Bill 97, which would impose a straight cap of $350,000 -- no exceptions -- passed 13-8 Tuesday on a nearly party-line vote. Removing the exceptions, in our judgment, places unacceptable restrictions on judges, juries and malpractice victims. The major provisions of the bill passed during the special session should be left intact until enough time has gone by to judge their effectiveness. We hope the Assembly is successful in blocking this ill-advised action by the Senate.