carson city:

Legislative panel approves medical malpractice bill

Opponents claim bill will raise insurance for doctors and drive them out of state

By Cy Ryan (contact)

Friday, April 10, 2009 | 11:08 a.m.

Las Vegas rally on AB 495

You need to upgrade your Flash Player

Full text of Assembly Bill 495

Lawmakers debate medical negligence bill (4-6-09)
Attorneys hope to lift malpractice damages cap (3-31-09)

Archive of Sun health stories

CARSON CITY – By an 8-6 vote, an Assembly committee approved a bill to allow patients who are victims of gross medical negligence to sue for unlimited pain and suffering damages.

Supporters of Assembly Bill 495 said the bill will protect patients who are harmed by bad doctors. Opponents said it will drive physicians insurance rates up and prompt doctors to leave Nevada.

The bill, approved by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, goes to the floor of the Assembly.

Assemblyman William Horne, D-Las Vegas, said bad doctors are protected by the current law and the bill provides a “good compromise.”

There has been criticism of the state Board of Medical Examiners that it has not punished bad doctors or acted swiftly when patients were endangered by bad physicians.

Assemblyman Ty Cobb, R-Reno, said the “net effect” will be to raise the insurance rates on all doctors, not just the bad ones. There will be fewer doctors in the specialties the state needs, he said. In a prior hearing, insurance and doctors predicted enactment of the bill would drive medical malpractice insurance up by 50-65 percent.

The present law limits non-economic damages in medical malpractice suits to $350,000. This bill would permit unlimited damages for instances of gross negligence. It would also give patients an extra year to determine if they should bring suit.

The bill will come up for a possible vote in the full Assembly next week.

Bill Bradley, a Reno lawyer representing patients, said this bill, sends a message to physicians that they should report any doctor they see practicing bad medicine.

But Jim Wadhams, attorney representing the Nevada Hospital Association, said “This change will destabilize insurance rates and we will lose good doctors.”

Wadhams said there are a number of bills in the Legislature trying to entice specialty doctors to come to Nevada. But this bill will hurt that effort.

The bill provides that suits for injury or death against a doctor may not be commenced more than four years after the date of injury or two years after the plaintiff discovered or should have discovered the injury. That is one year longer now than the current statute of limitation.

Voting against the bill were Republicans Cobb, John Carpenter of Elko Don Gustavson of Sparks, Richard McArthur and John Hambrick both of Las Vegas. The lone Democrat to oppose the bill was Bonnie Parnell of Carson City.

Discussion: 10 comments so far…

By Nick

4/10/09 at 1 p.m.

Suggest removal

There goes affordable healthcare again.

Bad move Nevada. Big lawsuits, hefty insurance rates, we all pay.
By neiman1

4/10/09 at 7:55 p.m.

Suggest removal

The Cancer Center just closed because there isn't enough money. What will close now? The losses don't just have to be paid, this immediately raises the insurance costs for every health care provider in the state. The money going to insurance is to pay future losses and it will all come out of health care starting the day this goes into effect. Idiots.
By WoodsideParkBob

4/11/09 at 4:53 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is a good first step. Malpractice victims should be fully compensated when there is gross negligence and indifference by a physician. The real solution, though, is for the medical board to protect the public rather than protecting physicians. The board should act vigorously to revoke or restrict the licenses of physicians with multiple malpractice payments or other problems in their records. Since over half of all dollars paid out for malpractice result from the acts of 1 to 2 percent pf physicians, vigorous action by the medical board concerning those few physicians would result both in lower malpractice insurance rates and better protection for the public.
By local

4/11/09 at 7:12 a.m.

Suggest removal

I strongly disagree with the comment made regarding revoking or restricting medical licenses of physicians with multiple malpractice payments. Just because a payment has been made does not mean that malpractice has occurred. Most physicians will attempt to settle cases rather than going to court. They are not judged by a jury of their peers, but by other patients who don't understand medicine. Complications to procedures happen all the time - they don't mean a doctor has committed malpractice. The state is already in dire straits - we won't have any doctors here by the time we're through.
By bingowaba

4/11/09 at 8:06 a.m.

Suggest removal

Congradulations to the brave 8 members who voted with the people instead of the Medical Lobbyists. It would be nice to print names, of the 6 who voted against the measure. That way the little people, like myself, will remember who they are and vote accordingly the next time around. Maybe, just maybe, the medical profession will begin seeing patients, not just a sorce of money but as human beings. If the greedy leave, then good riddance to the trash.
By trumpeter

4/11/09 at 9:35 a.m.

Suggest removal

This is one of th few times,since I moved into this valley thirty-two years ago, that the Nevada Legislature (NL) has done something worthy of note. The NL in casting this vote very important vote is holding up to its constitutional duty to safeguard the health and well-being of the citizens of Nevada. This will represent a blow to those in the medical and insurance industry whose only interest is to profit from the carcass of helpless people.

For the health insurer, devise means of having the premium of a doctor reflect his/her medical mishaps. This is how we pay for our automobile
insurance. Stop the notion of group penalty that you current impose on doctors. Reward the good doctors with lower premium and bad ones with higher malpractice premium. I am not a lawyer and lawyers are not the problem, but part of the solution.
By nevadaresident

4/11/09 at 12:09 p.m.

Suggest removal

I hope all of you people that are celebrating will one day need a specialist to care for your health needs, only to find that you can't find one locally and have to travel 500 miles just to see one.
By BTP

4/11/09 at 7:18 p.m.

Suggest removal

I think it is a good idea because it will make some of these would be doctors like the ones that gave me hep c think twice before doing something stupid. I can't recieve any treatment because I can't go off my other meds long enough to take the treatment.I want all of there ****S on my wall and all of the compensation I can get and if anybody dosn't like it tough $**T
By chickenwater

4/12/09 at 10:58 a.m.

Suggest removal

I sympathize with all who were affected by the atrocities that occurred under the hands of Dr. Desai. That monster should be punished severely. He is evil. He is immoral. He is a lunatic.

If you think that passing this law will prevent doctors from being malicious, then you are wrong. It's the equivalent of passing a law to prevent people from thinking like Jeffery Dahmer. No law will prevent the insane from doing evil.

Unfortunately, the passing of this bill has nothing to do with the hepatitis C outbreak or punishing Dr. Desai. Those who suffered under the hands of this doctor will not benefit. There will be no retroactive charges or compensation.

The passing of this bill WILL bring back soaring medical malpractice insurance for ALL doctors" even doctors who do no harm. Higher insurance for doctors gets passed down to patients = higher cost of healthcare. When the insurance gets too high, doctors will be forced to leave the state. New physicians will not come to Nevada to practice medicine.

A simple look at Nevada history before tort reform will show that this is true. We already have a severe need of healthcare providers because of the recent population boom. If this bill passes we could see a major healthcare crisis.

Unfortunately, this is a case of lawyers and politicians playing at the emotions of citizens. Because we are all angered, they want to appear as if they are doing something for the voters and that they are "on our side." The only beneficiaries in the passing of this bill will be the trial lawyer's wallets. Politicians are banking on getting your emotional votes. This is a very dangerous game they are playing.
By LostnLV

4/17/09 at 7:21 p.m.

Suggest removal

Who wins here. Medical Mal and Construction Defects. They go hand in hand. Do you all think the Lawyers care about you, your loved one or your home. NOPE - They care only about the money!! ITS ALL ABOUT THE MONEY!! God Bless Bonnie Parnell. The only Democrat who stood up to Bernie Anderson and William Horne. Both of you need to go and the good people in this state get it! Heard Bernie is running for mayor in Sparks. Hellooo Put this old worn out nag to pasture!!! And Soon! He has been nothing but the boy for the Nevada Trial Lawyers Bar!