Tort Reform
President Bush came into the White House with a history as a 'tort reformer.' True to his record, the President backed a 'tort reform' bill last year that was passed by the House of Representatives but floundered in a Democratic controlled Senate. The President has recently renewed his call for the legislature to approve a tort reform bill that relates mainly to medical malpractice. It remains to be seen whether President Bush is successful in getting his proposals approved this time around as debate still rages among the supporters and opponents of the reform bill. This paper looks at the pros and cons of the issue and includes the following:
summary of the proposed public policy on tort reform
The impact of the policy (who shall be affected?)
The lobbying efforts in favor of and against the tort reforms
Summary
The present tort reform proposal is restricted to medical malpractices. However, more sweeping tort reforms could be in the offing if the first part of the reforms is successfully passed into law. A summary of the proposed public policy announced by the White House is as under:
President Bush believes that by passing the proposed Medical Liability Reforms the U.S. Congress would "protect America's patients, doctors, and hospitals from the staggering costs of out-of-control lawsuits" and make health care more "affordable and accessible for all Americans." He has also suggested that the reforms would "by making the medical liability system more stable and predictable" increase "patient safety by reducing the disincentives for reporting medical errors and complications." ("President calls for..." White House Press Release)
The following specific steps have been proposed as part of the reform policy:
Allow injured patients quicker, unlimited compensation for their economic losses, including provisions for unpaid services like care for children or parents
Cap non-economic damages at $250,000
Cap punitive damages at two times economic damages or $250,000, whichever is greater
Provide for payments of judgments over time rather than in a single lump sum
Establish limits on how long cases can be brought after an event
Notify injuries if a plaintiff has other sources of reimbursement for an injury
Provide that...
The reforms would enable freer sharing of information about quality problems and medical errors that would result in fewer errors and complications and improve quality of health care. (Ibid.)
Impact of the Proposed Policy
The people and groups that are most likely to benefit from the new tort policy, if implemented, are the insurance companies, the doctors (in particular, neurologists and obstetricians), hospitals, nursing homes, pharmaceutical companies and medical device manufacturers and health maintenance organization (HMOs). If the initial tort reforms in medical liabilities are succesfully passed and lead to further tort reforms in other areas such as asbestos litigation, the beneficiaries would include many large American corporations.
The obvious losers of the tort reform are the trial lawyers who typically receive a percentage of any money awarded in a malpractice lawsuit that could run into millions of dollars. The other losers would be the victims of medical malpractice who have been grievously harmed because of the strict caps on damages envisioned in the reform Act. According to the "Center for Justice and Democracy" caps on non-economic damages have a disproportionate effect on women who work inside the home, children, seniors or the poor and other low wage earners who are more likely to receive a greater percentage of their compensation in the form of non-economic damages if they are injured. ("H.R. 5: A Cruel Proposal..")
As for the lowering of health costs and insurance premiums, it is a contentious issue with both the opponents and supporters of the tort reforms holding widely divergent views. While the government contends that such reforms would reduce Federal government costs by at least $28 billion per year and cut health care costs for all Americans by $60 billion or more, the opponents argue that since…
Tort reform has been on the lips of politicians and attorneys for many years. In the United States, it is a contentious political issue with strong feelings on both sides of the issue. U.S. tort reform advocates propose procedural and time limits on the right to file claims as well as capping the amounts of damage awards. The supporters of the existing tort system argue that the reformers have misrepresented
Some legislators believe that such suits encourage companies to ensure that there products are safe. Other law makers, however, believe that such suits are excessive and can prevent companies from being able to recover. Another form of tort reform that as been suggested is known as "loser pays. This type of legislation is based on the English Rule (Protecting Firestone and Ford Federal Tort Reform). This particular proposal would force
Tort Reform Necessary? Why? There is no doubt that America is a litigious society. It is a right built into the U.S. Constitutional that citizens can bring litigation against a person or entity when real (or imagined) harm has been done. Justice should be within reach of all Americans in that sense. But is there a point where too many lawsuits are launched over issues that are seemingly petty? And
The tort law reforms proposed at the national public liability summit in 2002 were described in a letter read into the record as being "a sensible mechanism for ensuring small businesses and community organisations can remain in operation and access public liability insurance. They are part of a range of practical measures to deal with this issue" (Commonwealth of Australia Parliamentary Debates 2002, p. 2900). The point was also brought
Tort walk was conducted by the undersigned and others at a local middle school in Broward County. The school was examined from the point-of-view of structural anomalies that could cause harm and injuries which could result in an action for a tort. Tort in this case could be based on negligence or injury and damage of property and if the violation of statutes goes with it then the school may
However, this aspect of tort law does not apply equally to all areas of tort law. For example, under theories of intentional infliction of emotional distress, a tortfeasor's behavior has to shock the conscience of the court. That a particular victim is particularly sensitive does not increase a tortfeasor's liability. Finally, tort law does not always involve one wrongdoer and one victim. In fact, both parties can have some liability