|
|
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
Re: Wisconsin Caps cappedFrom: DoctorJoe@aol.comSun Jul 31 22:25:19 2005
In a message dated 7/31/05 9:34:48 PM, garrys@mindspring.com writes:
> Thanks, Bob and Joe, although it seems a bit hard to understand as a Well, I read through the actual decision and it was very insteresting. 1) The court decided that the cap on noneconomic damages was NOT a constitutionally protected "right" in Wisconsin law. Therefore, loose scrutiny was appropriate. 2) Since loose scrutiny was appropriate, the court only needed to find a rational basis for the cap. Therefore the court analyzed statistics from BEFORE caps in Wisconsin, during the time of $1,000,000 cap in Wisconsin, and SINCE the $350,000 cap which was in question. What they found was, the compensation fund in Wisconsin ran a surplus during ALL those times and the imposition of either cap had no appreciable effect on the solvency of the compensation fund. In other words, whether there was no cap, a $1M cap or a $350k cap, there was no evidence that the malpractice pool in Wisconsin did better or worse (in fact, some of discussion, to me, hinted that the court thought some of the malpractice "crisis" discussion in Wisconsin leading to the caps was a bit suspect). 3) Therefore, the court found that the "evidence does not suggest that a $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages is rationally related to the objective of ensuring quality health care by preventing doctors from practicing defensive medicine. We agree with the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office's finding that evidence of the effects of defensive medicine was 'weak or inconclusive.'" So the law failed the rational relationship test - the law didn't rationally relate to the problem at hand, so it violated the equal protection/due process rights of the patients who were not allowed to seek higher damages. Interesting, in that the court actually found financial evidence of what the anti-caps people argue - capping damages does NOT help the "system" and makes no difference ultimately for the doctors, but it just short-changes some patients (esp. those who are hurt more). Pretty interesting decision. If anyone wants to actually read it, the link at the bottom of the news blurb I sent hooks you right to it. Joe P.
|
|
Return to
|
Mail a New Message to the Forum: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net Forum Administrator: geffrey.klein@obgyn.net Report Technical Problems: webmaster@obgyn.net Last Updated: Mon Nov 2 04:59:07 2009 |
The American Medical Association is no longer designating CME hours for AMA Category II CME credit. However, physicians themselves may self designate learning activities as Category II CME credit hours if they feel it is of sufficient educational merit and meets the formal definitions of continuing medical education. OBGYN.net believes these interaction in this forum meets these criteria. For further information see the AMA web site.