Nevada malpractice plan, Bush’s differ on economic caps

Friday, Jan. 17, 2003 | 9:44 a.m.

The biggest difference between President Bush's proposed medical-malpractice liability reforms and those signed into law by Gov. Kenny Guinn in August for Nevada has to do with the cap on noneconomic damages that a plaintiff can seek.

Both the president's plan and Nevada law keep intact an injured patient's ability to seek unlimited economic damages to pay medical bills and make up for lost wages.

The difference is that Bush wants to limit noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering to $250,000. He also wants to limit punitive damages to "reasonable amounts."

Nevada law placed a $350,000 cap on pain and suffering damages with two exceptions. One is for "gross malpractice" in which a physician shows a "disregard for and indifference to the safety and welfare of the patient."

The other exception is for "exceptional circumstances" as determined by a judge after a jury award. A judge must find "clear and convincing evidence" in such cases.

Because most Nevada doctors have insurance policies that do not exceed $1 million per incident, that is the most they would be expected to pay for pain and suffering damages under those exceptions. If a plaintiff receives $800,000 for economic damages, the most he could receive for pain and suffering is $200,000. Or, if he received $200,000 in economic damages, the most he could get is $800,000 for pain and suffering if the exceptions are approved.

Another potential difference between the Bush proposal and Nevada law has to do with the reporting of medical errors. The president wants health care organizations to share information on medical errors.

Nevada law provides for a medical error reporting system in which information on deaths and serious injuries is to be forwarded by hospitals and clinics to the state health division for analysis. However, the health division system won't become operational unless the Nevada Legislature provides an estimated $300,000 to $400,000 to make it happen.

Both Nevada law and the president's proposal encourage timely malpractice lawsuits and provide that defendants pay judgments in proportion to their fault.