Medical Malpractice and the Tort Reform in the USBy Adrian from Raleigh, NC on January 31, 2006 Category: Medical Malpractice Tort Reform <span>Medical Malpractice Tort Reform</span> <span>Medical malpractice</span> is associated with all the bad medical horror stories people hear about everyday. Medical malpractice is also called medical negligence; this is defined as the failure of a medical practitioner to properly treat a patient's condition, resulting in a new or aggravated condition, or possibly even death of the patient. The physician or practitioner is wholly responsible for the new resulting condition or the worsened (original) condition. The specific type of negligence in a medical malpractice case can be any one of the following:
<span>Medical malpractice torts</span> are, by their very nature, complex, extremely costly, have a low chance to recover from (financially, emotionally, and health-wise), and often involve a client's personal attachment with the physician. <span>Medical Malpractice Tort Reform in the US</span> In recent times, since the year 2000, the issue of medical malpractice has grown in severity and has increased tension among those in the insurance industry, trial attorneys, and victims' rights advocates. As a result of the growing number of incidences and the resulting uproar, medical liability insurance premiums have increased considerably. Medical malpractice tort law has traditionally been maintained and administered at the state level. All states have laws governing medical liability litigation. More than half have limits on damages rewards. Almost all states have eliminated joint and several liabilities in malpractice lawsuits. Moreover, many states have established limits on attorney fees. <span>The trend may soon change.</span> In 2005, 48 states introduced a total of over 400 bills to address medical liability reform. The bills introduced solutions such as limits on non-economic damages, reform for malpractice insurance, and using lawsuit claim data to assess the connection between malpractice settlements and insurance premium rates. The number of reforms enacted in each bill varied from state to state, indicating the diversity of the problem of medical liability insurance costs. And yet, despite the already extensive legislation at the state level, the issue of medical liability reform was made a key point in the 2004 US presidential election and many congressional races. Congress has been ignoring the state laws on medical malpractice reform, and the gap has grown wider in the last two years. The current Congress has seen the introduction of federal bills on medical malpractice tort reform that totally preempt and ignore the state laws. This intrusive legislation has the potential to render ineffective the work of state legislatures. It will also eliminate any opportunity for states to enact their own laws concerning specific malpractice issues. Federal legislation will also supplant existing state laws with its own laws. <span>Implications of Federal Tort “Reform”</span> The regulation of medical professionals is regarded as a purely state matter, and the federal government is slowly encroaching on state jurisdictions. According to the <span>National Conference of State Legislatures</span> (NCSL), Federal reforms of state medical malpractice laws are an assault on the traditional precepts of American federalism. Federal preemption of state laws ignores the Tenth Amendment and constitutional federalism, both of which divide federal and state authority. Federal legislation ignores and preempts the already existing body of legal work that has been executed in the last three years. Court procedures concerning medical malpractice litigation vary from state to state, and a one-size-fits-all type of solution such as federal reform will fail when attempting to address varying issues. |
Write a Reply |