Medical Liability Reform: H.B. 479 (2011)

| December 6, 2016

Requires an M.D., D.O., or D.D.S. licensed in another state

Requires an M.D., D.O., or D.D.S. licensed in another state to obtain an expert witness certificate before being able to provide expert testimony in Florida.

Gives the Boards of Medicine, Osteopathic Medicine, and Dentistry the specific authority to discipline any expert witness, both those licensed in state and those with an expert witness certificate, who provide deceptive or fraudulent expert witness testimony.

Requires the Board of Medicine and the Board of Osteopathic Medicine to create a standard informed consent form that sets forth the recognized risks related to cataract surgery. Provides that an incident resulting from a recognized specific risk is not considered an adverse incident.

Deletes the provision in current law that prohibits an insurance company from selling a malpractice insurance policy to a physician that gives the physician the authority to control settlement decisions.

Excludes from evidence in any medical negligence action any information regarding an insurer’s reimbursement policies or reimbursement determinations.

Provides that the breach of, or failure to comply with, any federal requirement is not admissible as evidence in a medical negligence case.

Provides that the expert witness who submits the pre-suit verified expert medical opinion is no longer immune from discipline.

Creates a new pre-suit form, the “authorization for release of protected health information.” This will make it easier for a physician to obtain the patient’s health care information in a malpractice suit.

Provides that volunteer team physicians are immune from suit when gratuitously rendering care at a school athletic event.

Liability Reform Bills Prioritized and Signed in Montana

Press Releases

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte signs key bills aimed at improving the state’s civil justice system.

SCOTUS Should Affirm Federal Law Supremacy With FDA Authority Case

In The News

The U.S. Supreme Court has a chance to rein in state court rulings that impose liability on pharmaceutical companies that go beyond, and even contradict, the federal regulatory process of the FDA, according to Tiger Joyce, president of the American Tort Reform Association. He explains why it is imperative the high court review a case involving Janssen Pharmaceuticals.