This proposed Senate Bill S33 is a laundry list of of ways to limit the rights of normal citizens in NC. While physicians may THINK this proposed Bill will help them, in reality, the bill is a giant GIFT to the insurance industry because it simply reduces the amounts of money insurance companies might have to pay in legitimate claims. Or put another way, it limits the recovery of individuals whom a jury have determined are truly injured by medical negligence.

Here is a quick rundown on the Bill and my comments on the reality of the provisions.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL CARE- If your emergency room doctor commits negligence, you can’t sue them. You can only sue if they are GROSSLY negligent, like, if they were drunk. So, when the ER doc gives your spouse an injection of penicillin, even though her medical chart says she is severely allergic to it, and she dies- too bad. Gross negligence is a very high standard in North Carolina.

BIFURCATION OF TRIALS ON ISSUES OF LIABILITY AND DAMAGES in any case over $75,000.

This means that in any case with a value of over $75,000 (which is almost every medical malpractice case out there) you essentially have two trials. The first part is on the question of negligence. Did the doctor make a mistake. The second part is on the damages. Sounds tempting and simple but the real reason behind this is two fold. First, it makes trials longer and more costly for the injured party. Many witnesses who could testify once, now have to testify twice. Experts are very expensive, sometimes $5,000 per day. Insurance Companies have nearly unlimited resources to bring in experts. Injured people do not. Second, by keeping out the damages, the jury does not have any idea how badly the mistake has affected the injured person. This “depersonalizes” the case which is an advantage to the Defendant.

LIMITING THE AMOUNT OF NONECONOMIC DAMAGES THAT MAY BE AWARDED ($250,000 cap on damages) As used in this section, ‘noneconomic damages’ means damages to compensate for pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium, inconvenience, physical impairment, disfigurement, and any other nonpecuniary, compensatory damage. So if your child is burned on 90% of their body in a negligent surgical fire, they get about $3,000 a year for life. And of course, this cap on damages ONLY affects people who have a legitimate case, i.e., some one whom a jury has just determined is injured as a result of negligence. This cap also disproportionately effects retired people who do not have future lost earnings. And of course, this means insurance companies can get off cheap, even if a jury thinks a higher amount is warranted.

BY AUTHORIZING THE PERIODIC PAYMENT OF FUTURE ECONOMIC DAMAGES IN LIEU OF A LUMP-SUM PAYMENT. Basically, this is in there because if the person who is awarded damages by a jury dies later, their family will not inherit the money. It will go back to the insurance company.

MODIFYING APPEAL BONDS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTIONS. This just makes it cheaper for insurance companies to appeal when they lose.

If approved, this act becomes effective October 1, 2011. (Better go to the doctor now.)

When “tort reform” was being debated on the Federal level, I produced a mock “Do It Yourself Tort Reform Release” which tried to demonstrate the reality of what the law makers were proposing. It got picked up by some national press and “went viral,” in as much as something about the law goes viral.

So, if you just can’t wait for Medical Malpractice “tort reform”, just download this handy form, sign it, and take it to your next doctor’s appointment.

The main insurer for physicians, NC Medical Mutual, has just announced that they MADE so much money last year, they are issuing a refund to doctors. And guess what? This is NOT a result of tort reform. We have had no major laws pass in our state which resulted in “savings.”

In fact, based upon actuarial studies, the reality appears to be that when lobbyists for the insurance companies were screaming for tort reform, what they were doing behind the scenes was RAISING premiums for physicains to create what I would call a “manufactured problem.” The doctors’ own insurance company was gouging them, and then asking them to donate money to “tort reform” causes, which of course, are insurance company lobby groups.

Looks like the physicians have finally reigned in their own insurance company by realizing that the “crisis”, if there is one, is mostly in the minds (and wallets) of the insurance industry.

from the News and Observer

N.C. insurer to pay dividend

Medical Mutual will also pay off debt as drop in malpractice suits boosts profit

David Ranii, Staff Writer

The state’s largest medical malpractice insurer says that fewer lawsuits filed against doctors will allow it to pay its policyholders a $3 million dividend — its first dividend ever.

Raleigh-based Medical Mutual Insurance Co. of North Carolina said it posted a 7.4 percent increase in profit last year as the number of lawsuits filed against its policyholders fell to 298 last year. That’s down from 326 in 2006.

In addition to paying the first dividend since the company was founded in 1975, Medical Mutual also plans to erase its $10 million in debt this year. And, over the next four years, it plans to refund $12 million in capital supplied by its policyholders in 2003 as part of a plan to shore up the company’s finances and stabilize its premium rates.

In recent years the N.C. Academy of Trial Lawyers, whose members include the personal-injury attorneys who sue doctors for malpractice, has bashed Medical Mutual for charging rates that the lawyers’ group labeled excessive.

Medical Mutual’s CEO Dale Jenkins said the dividend and capital refund to shareholders demonstrates “we are a very good steward of the resources the [doctors] have provided to us. We recognize every day that it is their money.”

Medical Mutual hasn’t sought a rate increase from state regulators since 2005. The latest positive financial results will allow the insurer to hold rates steady again this year.

Medical Mutual’s dividend will be in the form of a credit that physicians receive when they renew their policies, said Jenkins. The average credit will be about 5 percent of the annual premium for most of the 6,300 North Carolina physicians who are policyholders. Medical Mutual is a mutual insurance company that is owned by its policyholders.

“We’re always glad to see a company … able to give money back to its shareholders,” said N.C. Insurance Department spokeswoman Chrissy Pearson.

Jenkins said the number of medical malpractice lawsuits has fallen nationwide. In addition, Medical Mutual has taken steps aimed at limiting lawsuits. The company has established stringent underwriting guidelines in order to avoid insuring doctors it considers high-risk, Jenkins said. “We do not take all comers,” he said.

The company also sends out teams of nurses to assess doctors’ practices and recommend ways to minimize risks, he said.

Profit last year totaled $26.1 million, up from $24.3 million in 2006, Medical Mutual reported. Assets increased by $44.9 million, to $416.2 million.

_______________________________________

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com

The video does a great job showing how giant corporations have twisted and distorted the truth about law suits in America simply to poison jury pools. They do this so they can continue to deny responsiblity for wrong doing, and basically “save a buck” at the expense of injured people who have done nothing to cause their own injuries.

It’s about 8 minutes long and worth the watch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h85j1vNxd8A

or

_____________________________

Chris Nichols

The article below was written by a self-described conservative Christian physician who deeply questions the politics of taking away justice from injured people in the name of politics and for the goal of profitting “big business.”

This shows me that people are seeing that fairness and responsiblity are truly non-partisan issues, and that lawsuits, in and of themselves, are not “all bad.” In fact, lawyers and lawsuits have often been all that stands between the public and harm.

Remember the Little Guy
by Steven Hotze, M.D.

Shouldn’t companies and individuals who cause you harm be responsible for the damages they inflict?

You are probably aware of the lawsuits in the 1970s against Ford Motor Company and its Pinto automobile. Because of poor design, rear end crashes often caused the Pintos gasoline tank to explode into flames. Over 500 drivers lost their lives and thousands more were severely burned. Ford knew about this problem and that it would only cost $11 per car to repair but determined it was cheaper to pay the lawsuit settlements than recall the vehicles. Incredibly, Ford put their profits above the safety of their customers.

Because plaintiff attorneys were willing to file lawsuits on behalf of these injured individuals and families on a contingency basis and fight the multi-billion dollar Ford Motor Company, Ford paid hundreds of millions of dollars in judgments. Ford was also criminally charged with negligent homicide for having knowingly sold unsafe cars.

These lawsuits against Ford were based on product liability law which holds businesses responsible for any injuries caused by their products. The Ford lawsuits and resulting settlements sent a strong signal to the automobile industry. Safer cars have been the result.
Over the past decade, the Republicans in the Texas Legislature have passed a series of bills which have limited the liability of large corporations when they are found by a jury to have caused injury to their employees or their customers. This has me concerned and it should have you concerned as well.

Who wouldnt want limited liability for their actions? This is especially true of some large corporations which place their financial interests above the well being of their employees and customers.

Under current Texas law, it is hard to imagine that Ford Motor Company would have been required to pay out such a large amount of money in judgments as it did at that time.

Tort reform has dramatically limited the liability of businesses and individuals in Texas. The Texas Legislature has set limits on the amount that a business or individual can be required to pay in judgment to an injured party. No one likes the idea of frivolous lawsuits, but most individuals seem to agree that a remedy should be paid to an injured party commensurate with the damage.

Who does this current law benefit? It benefits the large corporations and the well financed who have deep pockets and the wherewithal to hire a bevy of defense attorneys. Their financial risk for shoddy workmanship and unsafe products has been dramatically reduced.

What about the small business owner or the individual with modest means? How will they afford the assistance of a lawyer to help them be fairly compensated for their losses?

As a physician and conservative, I have a healthy distrust for big government and big business. The conservative position requires accountability for actions. It appears to me that the pendulum for tort reform has swung too far in favor of big business.

Its time to remember the little guy.

by Steven Hotze, M.D.

_______________________

Chris Nichols
www.NicholsTrialLaw.com