Reps. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood, and Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill, speaker of the Missouri House of Representatives, joined with members of the House leadership Jan. 31 to announce the filing of HB 393 – new legislation aimed at reducing medical malpractice insurance premiums for the state’s doctors and provide meaningful tort reform. Among the bill’s components are noneconomic damage caps in medical malpractice cases and the elimination of court venue shopping. “Last year, we came close to giving our doctors meaningful tort reform and relief from ever-rising medical malpractice insurance premiums,” Byrd said in a news release. “But the governor chose to veto those reasonable proposals. This year’s bill provides a comprehensive approach to bringing balance into our litigation system. This bill will promote access to both health care and jobs for all Missourians.” But Springfield attorney David Ransin, who represents the injured, fears the bill would take away victims’ constitutional rights. “There are provisions in this bill that are not only terribly unfair in health care claims but are beginning to leak over into all torts,” he said. “I fear it is going to be a slippery slope and they are going to take away constitutional rights across the board.” Ransin is particularly outspoken against the damage caps, which he calls “arbitrary and not thought out.” “By capping damages you’re creating immunity, so that if someone is careless, they don’t have to pay for their mistakes,” said Ransin, a 22-year veteran of serious injury and death litigation. “They are limiting personal responsibility for mistakes that harm other people.” Provisions of HB 393 include: • Limiting noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. A cap of $250,000 would be placed on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases only. The proposal does not limit economic damage awards or nonmedical malpractice cases. Damages have been expanded to include the loss of services of someone responsible for the care of another to allow juries to assess that loss. • Affidavits of merit for all cases. These must be filed with all malpractice claims and signed by an expert, whose name must be disclosed, and who must be licensed and actively practicing in the same specialty as the defendant. • Reversing the Scott vs. SSM Healthcare St. Louis decision of 2002. This decision dramatically expanded the per occurrence cap for each defendant. The court decided that an “occurrence” is any and all acts of negligence that contribute to an injury, and not merely the injury itself. If passed, this legislation would restore the original statute of one cap per injury. • Plaintiff attorneys will no longer be able to engage in venue shopping. Cases would be tried in the county in which the plaintiff was first injured. • Elimination of joint and several liability. The bill specifies that in tort actions for damages, a defendant is responsible for the percentage of the judgment for which the defendant is determined to be at fault. • Limitations on punitive damages. Punitive damages would be limited to the greater of three times actual damages, or $250,000, unless the defendant committed a felony. • Plaintiff recovery reduction due to nonuse of safety belts. Under the proposed bill, a plaintiff’s recovery might be reduced up to 50 percent if evidence is found that the plaintiff did not wear a safety belt, and this action contributed to injuries. “We are committed to growing jobs and building a stronger health care system in the state of Missouri,” Jetton said in the release. “Tort reform and medical malpractice insurance reform will go a long way to reduce premiums, provide a stable practice environment and help to retain and attract jobs in the state.” [[In-content Ad]]
