Editorial: Panel won’t serve victims

Wednesday, Feb. 2, 2005 | 9:10 a.m.

Ostensibly, a major reason for having medical screening panels is so that cases of alleged malpractice can be heard by an authoritative and neutral third party before proceeding to court. Theoretically, the opinions rendered by such neutral panels can reduce the burden on the court system. In the case of opinions against doctors, insurance companies are inspired to settle with the victim, rather than chancing a jury verdict that could cost them even more money. And in the case of opinions favoring the doctors, alleged victims, knowing the opinion would be used against them in court, are discouraged from filing lawsuits.

Nevada experimented with a screening panel from 1986 through 2002. The above theories never panned out. Insurance companies weren't moved to settle a case based on the panel's finding. And alleged victims were just as likely to proceed with a lawsuit regardless of the panel's opinion. The failure of the Nevada panel, which was composed of three doctors and three trial lawyers serving on a voluntary basis, was evident in 2002. That year, doctors declared a medical malpractice "crisis" when their insurance premiums finally topped out at levels they said they could not afford.

Reacting to pressure from the doctors, Gov. Kenny Guinn called a special session of the Nevada Legislature. The Legislature passed a tort reform bill that prohibited juries from awarding victims of malpractice any more than $350,000 for noneconomic damages (pain and suffering). The bill allowed two exceptions for when the award could be higher -- for "exceptional circumstances" and for "gross" malpractice. Even this reform wasn't enough for the medical community. It placed Question 3 on the November 2004 ballot and campaigned vigorously for it, saying doctors would leave Nevada if it weren't passed. The question, passed by voters, eliminated the exceptions, reduced attorneys fees in malpractice cases, restricted the time frame for a victim to file suit and ended joint liability, meaning victims might never receive their full award if a team of doctors had been involved.

Also during the 2002 special session of the Legislature, the screening panel was abolished at the insistence of the doctors, who said it had been ineffective. But now the Clark County Medical Society is saying it will lobby the 2005 Legislature, which begins Monday, to resurrect the screening panel. Dr. Michael P. Colletti, president of the society, says the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has dramatically increased since the panel was folded. This point is contested by the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, which says the increase is because of cases being filed that had been pending before the old screening panel.

With the passage of Question 3, there's no need for a new panel. More effective would be a commitment by the medical community to discipline the few malpractice-prone doctors who cause most of the problems. And we're strongly opposed to Colletti's vision for a new panel's mission. "We'd like to see it instituted so it's not as easy, basically, to file lawsuits against physicians," Colletti told Sun reporter Kirsten Searer.

This comment obliterates any hope that the panel would be neutral. In our view, the odds are already stacked against victims of malpractice, without adding a panel whose stated goal is to further insulate doctors from legal accountability.