Medical malpractice initiatives, and what they do

Friday, Oct. 15, 2004 | 5:02 a.m.

When Nevada voters go to the polls on Nov. 2 they will be asked to settle a long-standing feud that has pitted trial lawyers against doctors and insurance companies.

The battle, encompassing three statewide ballot initiatives, is being waged over the high cost of medical malpractice insurance. All three initiatives would change a 2002 state law intended to stabilize and, ultimately, lower malpractice insurance rates.

Nobody in Carson City walked away happy when the Nevada Legislature, meeting in a special session, hammered out a bipartisan compromise that attempted to address the medical malpractice insurance dilemma doctors were facing.

The compromise left alone the unlimited actual damages injured patients can receive for medical bills and for past and future lost wages. But the law placed limits on damages an injured person could collect for pain and suffering.

The doctors walked away unhappy because the law did not limit pain-and-suffering damages as much they would have liked. The lawyers walked away unhappy because they wanted to keep the status quo, which at the time meant no limits on such damages.

Two years later, the doctors and lawyers have returned with their own ballot initiatives that they hope, if approved, will change the law the way they believe it should have been addressed by the Legislature. Each side is using titles to put the most favorable light on their respective initiatives.

Question 3, the "Keep Our Doctors in Nevada" initiative supported by doctors, has been criticized by lawyers who say there are more physicians in the state now than there were when the law passed two years ago. There were 4,990 active physicians in the state in September, up from 4,537 in December 2002, according to the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners.

Question 4, "The Insurance Rate Reduction and Reform Act" proposed by trial lawyers, has been assailed by doctors and insurance companies who say this initiative has really more to do with removing caps on pain-and-suffering damages than it does with insurance rates.

Question 5, the "Stop Frivolous Lawsuits and Protect Your Legal Rights Act," also proposed by lawyers, has also been criticized by doctors, insurers and other businesses that say it will do the opposite and promote more litigation, as well as preserve high attorneys' fees. More importantly to doctors, they say it is another attempt to remove caps on damages.

A major conflict is that if Question 3 is approved in November, it could be overridden by Questions 4 or 5 if either wins next month and is approved again by voters in November 2006.