Wednesday, Feb. 9, 2005 | 11:18 a.m.
SUN CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY -- There have been fewer requests by insurance companies to increase medical malpractice insurance rates since the state passed a law in 2002 further limiting medical malpractice judgments.
"The marketplace is more stable," said Cliff King, a deputy commissioner in the state Insurance Division.
But King told the Senate Judiciary Committee that the situation was still "fragile" because the constitutionality of the law has not been challenged in court.
"There has not been a single court case," he said.
If the law is upheld, it would encourage more competition among state among insurance companies that provide medical malpractice.
Also if a court rules the law is constitutional, there could be rate reductions, King said.
The law tightened restrictions on malpractice suits and limited non-economic damages to $350,000.
Scott Craigie, representing the Nevada State Medical Association, agreed the rates have stabilized for doctors. But he said insurance companies are "still nervous."
Sen. Mark Amodei, R-Carson City, suggested the state attorney general's office consider filing a test case to determine the constitutionality of the law to end the uncertainty.
"I hope we are not waiting for a case," said Amodei, chairman of the committee.
King said there were six major insurance companies in Nevada writing medical malpractice coverage. That's more than many other states he said.
Voters in November approved a doctor-supported initiative petition to put further restrictions on medical malpractice suits. It would limit the fees that could be paid a lawyer in a malpractice settlement or court award; would permit attorneys for doctors to present evidence at trial of other compensation that is going to the victims and also provide for periodic payments to the injured.
Bill Bradley, a Reno attorney representing the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said that initiative would severely hurt the victims of malpractice.
archive
