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.

Physician Testimony Reform: H.B. 37 (2002)

Virginia|2002

Clarified that: (1) a treating physician can be called to

[…]

Clarified that: (1) a treating physician can be called to testify regarding facts, diagnosis and treatment plan of his patient, and (2) a lawyer and practitioner of the healing arts may contact each other for a limited number of purposes.  Some judges had previously barred physicians from providing such testimony.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform: H.B. 112 (2002)

Virginia|2002

Added “health care facility” to the definition of “health care

[…]

Added “health care facility” to the definition of “health care provider” in the Health Care Malpractice Act.  The law assured that the state’s medical liability reforms apply to nursing care facilities and residential assisted living facilities.


[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform: Expert Witness: S.B. 699

Virginia

Requires the plaintiff, in medical liability cases, to provide certification of

[…]

Requires the plaintiff, in medical liability cases, to provide certification of expert witnesses.  The plaintiff must disclose the identity and qualifications of the expert witness who certified that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and the deviation was the proximate cause of the injuries claimed.  The certification is required before the plaintiff can commence any action for medical liability.


[hide]

Medical Liability Reform: Expert Witness Certification: H.B. 1545 (2013)

Virginia|2013

States that in an action for medical liability, the court, upon

[…]

States that in an action for medical liability, the court, upon showing good cause, may conduct an in camera review of the opinion obtained by the plaintiff of an expert witness who certified that the defendant deviated from the applicable standard of care and the deviation was the proximate cause of the injuries claimed.


[hide]