Tort reform moves toward governor's desk; Holden vows veto

As promised, Missouri's legislature is working to change the state's tort system, aiming to minimize exorbitant awards and improve the business outlook throughout the state.

However, the hot topic of tort reform may get a cold shoulder when it reaches Gov. Bob Holden's desk. Holden has said he will veto the Senate's tort reform bill, which passed last week by a vote of 21-12.

Senate Bill 280, sponsored by Sen. Delbert Scott (R-Lowry City), aims to restrict lawsuit awards especially in the medical malpractice arena by capping punitive and noneconomic damages, eliminating joint and several liability, and limiting venue shopping.

The latter is considered to be the greatest benefit to Missouri businesses, according to representatives of the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. This legislation would limit a lawsuit to the county where the accident happened or where the company's registered agent resides.

"This is a great benefit to Missouri business in that it's going to cut down on a practice known as venue shopping where plaintiff attorneys look for a way to get (suits) into St. Louis City Circuit or Jackson County Circuit courts, simply because they are more jury friendly and more plaintiff friendly," said Mike Grote, general council to the Missouri Chamber of Commerce. "Oftentimes you'll have grossly large verdicts against businesses in those jurisdictions."

Last year was a banner year for plaintiffs, according to Missouri Lawyers Weekly. The publication reports plaintiffs' awards totaling $2.36 billion among the 10 largest verdicts in 2002, largely due to a $2.2 billion verdict the second highest in state history against a Kansas City pharmacist who diluted the prescriptions of cancer patients.

That verdict aside, the total of the next 10 largest verdicts topped $157 million; 2001's 10 largest cases totaled $106 million. Grote notes that eight of the 10 largest plaintiff's verdicts last year were awarded in St. Louis City and Jackson County courts.

"The legal system has become the legal lottery now," said Scott George, a small-business owner from Monett who says large awards threaten small businesses. "Every small business feels like they are one lawsuit away from being out of business."

George experienced that feeling firsthand a few years ago.

"I've been in a lawsuit. It was $1.6 million," he said. "If I lost that, it would have been over."

The suit, which spanned two years from 1995 to 1997, came from a dentist whose lease George did not renew at the Mid-America Dental & Hearing Center. Fortunately, it was thrown out, George said, but the company did lose some key personnel as a result time spent on the suit instead of tending to business concerns.

Springfield lawyer Steve Garner, a personal injury attorney with The Strong Law Firm, doesn't see a need to reform the legal system.

He said in most cases, when a business goes under from a lawsuit, the system is doing its job.

"If somebody tells me that a lawsuit and a verdict put a business out of business, sometimes that may be good because there are some businesses that hurt people and shouldn't remain in business," he said. "Part of the system is to get the bad businesses out of business."

Proponents of the legislation have targeted medical malpractice suits and claimed doctors are leaving the state as a result.

The Senate bill caps medical malpractice noneconomic damages which is compensation for pain and suffering at $350,000.

Bob Bruer, attorney with Bruer, Waddell, Oliver & Bates in Springfield, said the cap would reverse more than 15 years of progress. "It takes us back to 1986 levels," he said.

Bruer's firm specializes in medical malpractice suits and handled the $7.5 million Tinsley v. SSM Health Care Strategies case, which ranked seventh in the state last year in size of award.

Bruer said venue shopping did not occur in that case as the incident occurred in St. Louis, the city where SSM Health Care is located and where the case was tried.

He believes the bill's caps threaten constitutional rights because trial by jury is a form of freedom of speech. "The bill doesn't affect us, but it does affect our clients' rights," he said. "It will be wrong if it makes it out of Jefferson City."

In a prepared statement, Holden said the bill falls short of fairly reforming medical malpractice because the bill does not address medical malpractice insurance relief to Missouri physicians.

"That is most regrettable," said Senate President Pro Tem Peter Kinder (R-Cape Girardeau) of the governor's statement. "I hope he will reconsider that. The fact that we could not do everything in the bill in the nature of insurance reform ... doesn't mean we shouldn't move forward with this bill."

Senate Bill 280 is now seeking approval from the Missouri House of Representatives. The House Judiciary Committee is expected to take up the bill when the General Assembly returns from spring break in April, said Rep. Richard Byrd (R-Kirkwood), who chairs the committee.

The House recently passed its own version of tort reform: House Bill 273.

Kinder said he and House Speaker Catherine Hanaway (R-St. Louis County) will discuss which bill to present to the governor.

Despite Holden's vow for a veto, Senate bill sponsor Scott is still optimistic: "There will be an opportunity prior to that time for every business person and every doctor and every citizen of the state to contact (Holden) and tell him how important it is that he sign the bill."

To read more on the House and Senate tort reform bills, visit www.house.state. mo.us/bills03/bills/hb273.htm or www. senate.state.mo.us/03INFO/bills/sb280. htm.