Florida malpractice measures conflicted

Tallahassee, FL, Nov. 4 (UPI) -- Florida voters approved three conflicting constitutional amendments dealing with medical malpractice, and now the courts and the Legislature will decide.

Both the doctors and lawyers of the state are planning to challenge the measures, although possibly not the same ones. Two lawsuits were filed Wednesday. Two of the amendments have to be implemented by the Legislature, the St. Petersburg Times reported Wednesday.

The measure that received the most attention was one that limits the share of money that patients lawyers can receive in medical malpractice cases. The amendment goes into effect immediately.

The other two amendments were backed by lawyers and they also passed.

Legal observers say Amendment 3 will make it more difficult for lawyers to bring malpractice cases, but Amendments 7 and 8 will make it easier.

One of them gives patients more access to documents about medical mistakes, and the other would revoke the licenses of doctors with repeated disciplinary actions against them.

Some observers say that as a result the lawyers won. But that's still to be determined.

Legislature approves malpractice overhaul

Gov. Bush to sign cap of $500,000 for doctors
Posted on Thu, Aug. 14, 2003
BY JONI JAMES

TALLAHASSEE - Wrapping up its most contentious debate since Republicans assumed control of state government seven years ago, the Florida Legislature on Wednesday overwhelmingly passed a plan to overhaul the state's medical malpractice insurance system.

Gov. Jeb Bush, who saw his considerable political influence wane during three special sessions on the issue, said he could sign the bill into law as early as today.

The bill will cap the ''pain and suffering'' amount that juries can award a victim of medical malpractice at $1.25 million in most cases, with physicians' liability capped at $500,000 and hospitals' or other medical providers' liability capped at $750,000.

GOP Senators Offer Amendment to Medical Malpractice Reform Package

Tallahassee - Today, Senators Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton) and Nancy Argenziano (R-Crystal River) offered an amendment to Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 2D regarding medical malpractice in effort to secure mandatory rate roll backs for insurance companies providing malpractice insurance coverage. This amendment seeks to address the increasing medical malpractice liability insurance rates which have threatened to: force Florida physicians to practice medicine without professional liability insurance, to leave the state, to not perform high-risk procedures, or to retire early from the practice of medicine.

"Senator Bennett and I felt it important to offer this amendment which mandates a 20% rate roll back in order to provide insurance companies with the predictability and stability necessary to regulate the market and lower doctors' insurance premiums. We felt like this was an important missing piece in the Senate's current malpractice reform package," said Senator Argenziano.

Included in the amendment are provisions for a rate freeze and a rate rollback for insurance companies providing medical malpractice insurance coverage. The rate freeze, similar to a provisions included in CS SB 2D, calls for malpractice insurance premiums to be frozen at those rates in effect on or before July 1, 2003. This rate freeze is intended to prevent further increases in doctors' premiums until the full effects of the medical malpractice reform legislation can be implemented. In addition, the amendment states that within 60 days of the effective date of the legislation each insurance company must submit a filing that reduces the rates in premiums to 20% below the rates and premiums in effect on July 1, 2003. These new rates would take effect no later than January 1, 2004, and would apply retroactively to policies issued on or after the effective date of the legislation.

Additional provisions in the amendment allowed insurance companies to contest the 20% rollback and instead submit a smaller percentage. With their suggested rate filing they are required to submit justification of why they can not comply with the 20% rollback mandate, to be reviewed by the Office of Insurance Regulation for acceptance or denial.

This amendment was withdrawn by the sponsors prior to a vote on the Senate floor.

"Unfortunately, the constitutionality of this measure was called into question and therefore we withdrew it, not wanting to jeopardize the passage of the Senate's medical malpractice legislation. We recognize the importance of providing relief from mounting malpractice insurance premiums and hope that the mandatory rate freeze and required rate filing included in the Senate's legislation will be successful in providing market predictability and result in reduced premiums for Florida's doctors," concluded Senator Bennett.

Brent Batten: Cap on damages just one of many cures for malpractice maladies

Thursday, August 14, 2003

By BRENT BATTEN, bebatten@naplesnews.com

All the talk coming out of Tallahassee is about the cap.

That's understandable. What could be more glamorous than a $500,000 limit on noneconomic damages for pain and suffering in medical malpractice lawsuits?

But the bill hammered out to try to curb increasing malpractice insurance premiums on doctors contains many other provisions, and some may be just as important in offering relief to physicians.

Malpractice bill heads to Bush

In their third special session on the issue, the state House and Senate approve the measure that would set limits on damages.

By ALISA ULFERTS, Times Staff Writer

published August 14, 2003

TALLAHASSEE - For nearly a year, the Senate and House, backed respectively by legal and medical interests, battled over how to lower physicians' malpractice insurance rates. Some doctors, especially those in high-risk specialties like obstetrics and neurosurgery, have closed their doors or curbed their services under the weight of astronomical insurance rate increases.

The Florida Medical Association and the state's largest medical malpractice insurer, with whom the FMA has a financial relationship, said the only guaranteed way to bring insurance premiums down was to cap noneconomic damages in medical malpractice lawsuits at $250,000. Trial lawyers and consumer groups balked, saying such caps only hurt the elderly and others who don't qualify for economic damages such as lost wages.

The caps became the flashpoint for the entire debate. King initially refused to consider any cap, saying that would hurt only the victims of the most egregious cases of malpractice

Disclaimer:    We are not attempting to practice law, give advice or represent ourselves as anything more than a resource portal with many unique features. Our design is copyrighted. We have no claim of any affiliation with any linked website nor any liability for anything they may say or do. We, and our contributing authors, offer no warranties of any type, to anyone, about anything express or implied.  What you see is what you get, we cannot afford to be your insurer.   

By going further into this site, you accept this complete waiver of all warranties.

© All material copyrighted, LawReader, Inc. 314 7th. St., Carrollton, Ky. 41008