Medical Liability Reform

Problem

In state civil justice systems that lack reasonable limits on liability, multi-million dollar jury awards and settlements in medical liability cases have forced many insurance companies to either leave the market or substantially raise costs.  Increasingly, physicians in these states are choosing to stop practicing medicine, abandon high-risk parts of their practices, or move their practices to other states. 

ATRA's Position:

To help bring a degree of predictability and fairness to the civil justice system that is critical to solving the growing medical access and affordability crisis, ATRA recommends a medical liability reform packages that includes: (1) a $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages; (2) a sliding scale for attorney’s contingent fees; (3) periodic payment of future damages; and (4) abolition of the collateral source. 


Opposition Opinion:

The personal injury bar likes to argue that only insurance companies are to blame for the current medical liability crisis.  Pointing to significant declines in the stock market, they blame insurance companies for raising rates to make up for allegedly irresponsible investing practices.  But market fluctuations cannot fully explain the sharp increases in medical liability insurance pricing, especially since insurance companies invest only 13% of their total investments in stocks.  A better explanation of why insurance companies have raised rates is that they have had to cover the cost of increased claim payments, which have risen almost three times the rate of inflation in recent years.

Medical Liability- Peer Review: H.B. 1007 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Clarifies that in medical peer review proceedings, peer review information

[…]

Clarifies that in medical peer review proceedings, peer review information shall be private, confidential, privileged and not subject to discovery.  Also states that in any action brought against a health care facility involving possible negligence in hiring, or contract with, a health care professional, any information discovered pursuant to a claim of negligence against such health care facility shall not be admissible as evidence until a judge or jury has first found the health care professional to have been negligent in providing health care services to the patient I n such health acre facility.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Affidavit of Merit: S.B. 1 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Sets forth than in any civil action for professional negligence,

[…]

Sets forth than in any civil action for professional negligence, the plaintiff shall attach to the petition an affidavit and sets forth what is required in the filing and what should be done without an affidavit attached.


[hide]

Challenged and Struck Down

Wall v. Marouk, 302 P.3d 775 (Okla. 2013).

Medical Liability: S.B. 1905 (2014)

Oklahoma|2014

Provides that a health care provider’s failure to comply with

[…]

Provides that a health care provider’s failure to comply with or a health care provider’s breach of the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act shall not be admissible, used to determine the standard of care, or the legal basis for a presumption of negligence in any medical liability action.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform: Expert Evidence: S.B. 6 (2013)

Oklahoma|2013

Adopts the federal rules of evidence.  Sets out that a qualified

[…]

Adopts the federal rules of evidence.  Sets out that a qualified expert witness may testify on scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge if; (1) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data; (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case.  Also sets out that facts or data that are otherwise inadmissible shall no tbe disclosed to the jury by the proponent of the opinion or inference unless the court determines that their probative value in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert’s opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect.


[hide]