Second malpractice question may face voters

Erin Neff

Friday, May 30, 2003 | 11:19 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- An agreement reached in a legislative conference committee this morning could put a second medical malpractice question on the ballot next fall.

But the agreement between six lawmakers, representing Democrats and Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate, is now headed back to each house. It is expected to face a close vote in the Senate.

The conference committee, which was examining Senate Bill 97, agreed to place an alternative ballot question to the one sought by doctors in an initiative petition. The petition ballot question asks voters whether they want a $350,000 cap, with no exceptions, on medical malpractice jury awards.

The agreement reached in conference would ask voters if they wanted the state's new medical malpractice law to remain in place. Voters would be asked to support the current $350,000 cap with exceptions that allow a higher judgment for gross negligence and special circumstances.

The Assembly will have no problem adopting the conference report because itt had already approved sending the alternative petition to voters.

The Senate will be a different story, however, as past 11-10 votes on the bill have proved. If the conference report is adopted by both houses, SB97 will go to the governor for consideration.

When SB97 passed the Assembly it also included a provision that the cap be raised to $500,000 for "non-wage earners" such as seniors and children. The conference committee did not adopt the increased cap this morning.

"I just feel that we're not doing right by our seniors and children," Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, said.

Buckley did vote for the conference agreement, however, saying that voters need to decide whether the current law is working.

Sen. Mike McGinness, R-Fallon, Sen. Mike Schneider, D-Las Vegas, and Assemblywoman Dawn Gibbons, R-Reno, joined Buckley in support.

Since two members of each house approved the agreement, the conference report was finalized and sent to the two houses for consideration.

Sen. Maurice Washington, R-Sparks, and Assemblyman Bernie Anderson, D-Sparks, both voted against the conference report.

The conference report also removes other provisions the Assembly had added to SB97 including language regarding any willing provider; insurance premium rollbacks and restoring a medical-legal screening panel.

Buckley said support still exists for a screening panel, and she suggested lawmakers draft a bill in the 2005 session to bring the panel back. The panel was eradicated during last August's special session on medical malpractice.