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 Reform- Innocent Prescriber: H.B. 2011 (2005)

West Virginia|2005

Provided that no health care provider is liable to a

[…]

Provided that no health care provider is liable to a patient or third party for injuries sustained as a result of the ingestion of a prescription drug or use of a medical device that was prescribed or used by a healthcare provider in accordance with instructions approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding dosage and administration of the drug, the indications for which the drug should be taken or device should be used, and the contraindications against the drug or using the device. The liability exemption does not apply if: (1) the health care provider had actual knowledge that the drug or device was inherently unsafe for the purpose for which it was prescribed or used or (2) a manufacturer of such drug or device publicly announces changes in the dosage or administration of such drug or changes in contraindications against taking the drug or using the device and the health care provider fails to follow such publicly announced changes and such failure proximately caused or contributed to the plaintiff’s injuries or damages.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability Reform- Expressions of Sympathy: H.B. 3174 (2005)

West Virginia|2005

Provided that no statement, affirmation, gesture or conduct of a

[…]

Provided that no statement, affirmation, gesture or conduct of a healthcare provider who provided healthcare services to a patient, expressing apology, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion or a general sense of benevolence, to the patient, a relative of the patient or a representative of the patient and which relate to the discomfort, pain, suffering, injury or death of the patient shall be admissible as evidence of an admission of liability or as evidence of an admission against interest in medical liability civil actions.

[hide]

Unchallenged

Medical Liability: S.B. 6 (2015)

West Virginia|2015

Links the noneconomic damages limit to the Consumer Price Index,

[…]

Links the noneconomic damages limit to the Consumer Price Index, requires appellate courts to review the standards applied to admitting expert testimony de novo, and excludes amounts written off a medical bill by a thirty party from the definition of a “collateral source.”

[hide]

Unchallenged