OB-GYN-L Messages for July, 2004: Re: Kerry/Edwards Tort Reform

Re: Kerry/Edwards Tort Reform

From: Harrison Sheld

hsheld@anv.net

Sat Jul 31 14:27:28 2004

Flip-Flop-Flip

Kerry Missed 2003 Vote On Medical Liability Reform. The July 2003 vote was a motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to proceed to the bill that would cap awards in medical malpractice lawsuits. It would limit awards for non-economic damages to $250,000 and would cap punitive damages at $250,000 or double economic damages, whichever is greater.

Kerry Missed Both 2004 Votes On Medical Liability Reform. The February 2004 vote was a motion to invoke cloture (thus limiting debate) on the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill that would place caps on damage awards in medical malpractice lawsuits against obstetricians and gynecologists. The April 2004 vote was a motion to invoke cloture on a similar bill that would curb awards against emergency and trauma center personnel, as well as ob-gyns.

For 2003, Kerry Received Lowest Rating (Zero) From American College Of Obstetricians And Gynecologists (ACOG). (Project Vote Smart Website, http://www.vote-smart.org, Accessed 2/5/04)

Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D. wrote:

> I also did not want to discuss American politics, but I was surprised
> by the Kerry/Edwards proposals regarding medical malpractice tort
> reform, namely:
> [Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.] I think you are correct - the means to an
> end is what is important to us.
>
> A requirement that medical malpractice claims first go before a
> qualified medical specialist to determine whether a reasonable
> grievance exists.
> [Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.] Certainly depends upon the definition of
> "qualified medical specialist" because we all know that you can buy
> what ever opinion you want.
>
> A requirement that states ensure the availability of non-binding
> mediation in all malpractice claims before cases proceed to trial.
> [Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.] In Montana, we have a Medico-legal Panel
> composed on three attorneys and three physicians. Before a case
> can proceed onto suit, it has to be presented to the Panel.
> The plaintiff and their attorney, along with the defendant and their
> attorney present their case. Members of the Panel are allowed to
> question both sides. Following deliberation, the Panel votes.
> Unfortunately, the decision of the Panel has no teeth - in other
> words, the case can proceed, regardless of the Panel vote. Further,
> the decision of the Panel is not admissible in court. Advocates of
> the Panel argue that it is still a reasonable endeavor because an
> attorney that gets a unanimous vote against, may decide to drop the
> suit. I would like to see the decision of the Panel be the word on
> whether or not a case progresses.
>
> Support for sanctions against plaintiffs and lawyers who bring
> frivolous medical malpractice claims, including a "three strikes and
> you're out" provision preventing lawyers who file three frivolous
> cases from bringing another suit for 10 years.
> [Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.] Would certainly weed out several that I know.
>
> Opposing punitive damages -- unless intentional misconduct, gross
> negligence, or reckless indifference to life can be established.
> [Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.] Very reasonable - after all I think we
> would all agree with this one.
>
> Eliminating special privileges that allow insurance companies to fix
> prices and collude in ways that increase medical malpractice premiums."
> [Lynn D. Montgomery, M.D.] Damn right
>
> Seem reasonable to me - maybe our discussion should center on these
> proposals? (My intent for my original post)
>
> Robert Modugno MD MBA FACOG
> Marietta, GA
> www.novaobgyn.yourmd.com <http://www.novaobgyn.yourmd.com>
>
> (By the way, I think Dubya would have handled the Waco Wackos the same
> way Janet Reno did!)
>

use when must restrict search to only the ob-gyn-l forum...
Enter search keywords:
	Returns per screen: Require all keywords: