Maryland Personal Injury--Tort Reform II
Tort Reform II
Tort reform ranges from legislation that directly affects certain areas of tort law, such as medical malpractice, to changes in various rules, defenses and limits applicable to cases that can impact how much an individual or a group receives in damages. Some of the tort reform proposals to date and laws based on the idea of tort reform have involved limits on punitive damages or non-economic damages in personal injury cases, moving class action lawsuits from state to federal court, or limiting frivolous lawsuits. In February, President Bush signed a sweeping overhaul of the class-action lawsuit process (Senator Obama was one of the 18 Democratic senators who voted in favor of the bill when it was in the Senate). Only a minority of tort cases will be affected by these laws, but the people affected really need the compensation and/or have been done an egregious wrong. Reform opponents argue that the current legal system produce safer products and drugs. They claim that if the right to sue is restricted, it may result in people not having the resources to get into the courts and businesses will have much less incentive to provide safe products.In the area of medical malpractice, tort reform advocates claim that insurance premiums will decrease, making medical care more affordable and eliminating a disincentive for doctors to practice medicine. In contrast, tort reform critics contend that high medical malpractice insurance rates are a result of the cyclical nature of the insurance industry, lack of competition, mismanagement of reserves, and a decline in investment income. Here are some of the tort reform issues:
Noneconomic damage caps. Non economic damages compensate for injuries and losses not easily quantified by a dollar amount, such as loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, or severe physical impairment. This compensation is for the family of the victims who have died or been severely injured. There has been a lot of publicity in connection with huge awards running into the tens of millions of dollars. Noneconomic damage caps limit the amount for a victim who wasn't damaged economically. In contrast, if the same person's capacity to earn money were damaged as a result of noneconomic damages, there would be no limits on that figure.
Punitive damages caps. These awards are designed to punish outrageous behavior such as companies or individuals who knowingly injure others. Reform opponents argue that by capping punitive damages, there is less cost to companies who put out defective products. Those in favor of tort reform deny that companies would benefit in any way by manufacturing and marketing defective products.
Contingency-fee limits. In many tort cases lawyers do not charge their clients an up-front fee, but receive a percentage of any monetary award the client receives. Limits on contingency fees would curb the large amounts some lawyers and law firms make on such cases, tort reform advocates say. On the other hand, anti-tort reform groups believe that many poor consumers who were wronged wouldn't have access to effective legal representation if such fees were capped because lawyers couldn't afford to spend the time and money necessary to win such cases.
Other tort reform issues include:
· Limits on prejudgment interest that would either abolish or greatly restrict the amount of interest on a consumer's award between the time the suit is filed and when a judgment is rendered.
· Restrictions on a company's liability to compensate victims when several companies are found at fault. In this case, if one or more of the at-fault companies goes bankrupt, consumers who were wronged could receive substantially less than awarded by a judge or jury. While under the current system, consumers may recover the amount of full award from a single defendant regardless of whether the other defendants are solvent.
· Rules that would allow juries and judges to reduce the amount of compensation by the amount of any insurance or disability coverage the victim will get.
A factor often overlooked by the proponents of tort reform is not what judicial awards cost the big companies, but what injury and accidents cost the economy and society in terms of lost productivity and the impact on family members who have to take care of the disabled. Some opposed to tort reform claim that accident costs dwarf the costs in the tort system.
Most states have instituted some type of tort reform during the past 10 years. Virginia has done a lot over the last 25 years to enact liability reform. The state has a cap on liability, which has gone from $750,000 to $1 million to $1.6 million. The cap covers economic and non-economic grievances. Furthermore, those caps cover all providers involved in an alleged incident of malpractice, so if the hospital, doctor and nurse are each sued, the caps apply to all parties taken together, not individually. Maryland initiated tort reform in 1986, limiting the amount of non-economic damages patient may receive in medical malpractice cases. The current cap of $1.4 million increases with inflation. These reform efforts has had mixed success, but proponents are working at the federal level to pass laws dealing with class action lawsuits, medical malpractice and asbestos-related claims, among others.
Although The United States is a country with more tort lawsuits than most other countries, in most countries that have lower tort lawsuits, there is a more extensive social safety net. Our country has a free market approach to health care, disabilities and other social issues which also become economic problems. Our tort system is designed with our economic system considered in order to compensate for the lack of social services. In many countries with tort reform, there are more stringent regulation and provisions for health care, disability, and wage replacement, leaving its citizens with basic necessities if injured. In America, many injured people are facing destitution if they are badly hurt.
