Effects of Tort "Reform" in Texas are Mixed
The Dallas Morning News has a fairly balanced article about the effect of tort "reform" on doctors and patients. An excerpt of the most powerful story is below:
Naydene Lambert's family was ready to sue the hospital when she died after a routine colonoscopy last June.
The Gordonville woman developed a blood clot in her lungs. She didn't get blood-thinning medicine, despite a history of the problem and obvious varicose veins signaling potential clotting problems, her daughters say.
"We're not sue-happy people at all, but they killed our mother," daughter Patsy Wertz said.
But because Ms. Lambert, 73, didn't earn any money, they couldn't ask for lost wages.
That left pain and suffering – a claim that requires lots of costly experts and, because of the $250,000 damage cap, holds zero hope of a substantial award.
After expenses and attorney fees, the family would probably end up with nothing from a lawsuit, even if they won, lawyers told the family. (Emphasis added.)
Source: How tort reform has affected four people | Dallas Morning News | News for Dallas, Texas | Business
And that's the number-one reason tort "reform" is unfair - if you're a stay-at-home parent or a retiree, you or your family might not even be able to bring a truly legitimate lawsuit. But, if you make six-figures (like most people in the "reform" movement do), your damages will be high enough to ensure your case will make financial sense.
The article also tells the story of two doctors who are in Texas at least in part because of the "reform" legislation passed in 2004. While both doctors liked the damage caps, one chose to move to Brownwood because he wanted small-town life, and the other doctor chose Corpus Christi because his brother is a cardiologist there. Another interesting tidbit from the article: Missouri has a $500k cap on noneconomic damages and Texas has a cap of $250k. A urologist in Missouri will pay $60,000 per year in malpractice premiums, while a urologist in Texas will pay $2,000. The damage caps in Missouri are twice as high, but the malpractice premiums are 30x higher... So why not tie insurance premiums to damage caps? You know, offer to institute $250k caps if malpractice insurers will cut their rates to $2,000 per year? Somehow, I don't think they'd go for it.
Comments