Poll: Malpractice reform supported

Wednesday, May 21, 2003 | 9:27 a.m.

A new poll commissioned by a group of doctors seeking tougher state medical malpractice laws found that Nevadans overwhelmingly support lawsuit reforms that would limit awards for pain and suffering.

The poll commissioned by the nonprofit Keep Our Doctors in Nevada and released Tuesday found that 74 percent of Nevadans believe there is a health care crisis in the state and 82 percent believe further lawsuit reforms are needed.

The doctors hope the poll results will help convince the Nevada Legislature to approve Senate Bill 97, which would revise some provisions of a medical malpractice law adopted in special session last summer and eliminate others. Physicians are pushing for reforms that they say will curb skyrocketing malpractice insurance costs and keep doctors from leaving the state.

But a leading medical malpractice lawyer in Las Vegas, who opposes the reforms sought by doctors, said the physicians' polling and advertising campaign has been misleading the public and he discounted the results of the latest poll.

The latest poll, conducted by Democratic pollster Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates of Washington, came up with virtually the same results as another poll performed on behalf of the nonprofit doctors' group in February by Republican pollster Luntz Research Companies of Arlington, Va.

"This is not a Democratic issue or a Republican issue," Jim Denton, lobbyist for Keep Our Doctor in Nevada, said. "This is an issue that the public wants fixed and resolved.

"Many doctors are staying here hoping that reform will occur this session."

The poll of 400 Nevadans, conducted earlier this month, had a margin of error of 4.9 percent. That's higher than the 3 percent to 3.5 percent margin of error typically used in national polls. But Denton said the poll results were sound and that some of the responses were significant enough that lawmakers ought to take notice.

The poll found that 29 percent of all respondents but 37 percent of Democrats would be much less likely to vote in the next general election for a lawmaker who opposed further changes to existing medical malpractice laws. The stiffest opposition to changing existing laws is from legislative Democrats.

"What that number tells me is that if you're a Democratic legislator, I would sure pay attention to that," Denton said.

Of those respondents who said Nevada had a health care crisis, 40 percent blamed lawyers and the number of lawsuits, 33 percent blamed insurers, 10 percent blamed politicians and only 5 percent blamed doctors. Respondents also rated medical malpractice reform as the second most important issue in Nevada behind education.

But Las Vegas attorney Gerald Gillock, who represents plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases, said he didn't believe the poll was valid because the doctors have been misleading the public all along about the extent of medical malpractice litigation problems in Nevada.

Gillock said the number of "frivolous" lawsuits claimed by doctors in Nevada has been exaggerated.

"The problem with polling the general public is that the doctors have totally misled the general public as to what is taking place in Nevada," Gillock said. "I don't know one doctor who has left town because of a frivolous lawsuit. I don't know of any frivolous medical malpractice lawsuits.

"The doctors have spent so much money on their campaign that 74 percent of the people definitely think there is a health care crisis. A lot of that money came from insurance companies and this money has totally misled our city."

Senate Bill 97 was introduced after doctors collected 95,000 signatures statewide to compel the Legislature to at least consider the proposed reforms.

SB97 would establish a $350,000 cap on pain and suffering per occurrence with no exceptions. Existing law provides that each plaintiff can recover $350,000 in noneconomic damages from each defendant, with exceptions to that cap for gross negligence or at the discretion of the court in some cases as warranted by the evidence.

The bill would also establish maximum payments for attorney's fees depending on the size of the judgment. Current law places no maximum on attorney's fees.

The bill was approved as written in the state Senate but was approved with amendments by the Assembly Judiciary Committee and awaits a vote in the full Assembly.