Medical Liability Reform: H.B. 479 (2011)
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.
ATRA praises the passage of HB 6030 in Michigan, enacting COVID-19 liability protections.
ATRA’s statement on the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania’s ruling in Hammons v. Ethicon to allow an out-of-state lawsuit to continue, openly defying SCOTUS precedent.
Amanda Bronstad with Law.com writes about the potential repercussions if the 2019 $465 million judgment against Johnson & Johnson stands.
ATRA files amicus brief in support of Johnson & Johnson’s decision to appeal a 2019 $465 million judgment against the company, warning against the state attorney general’s expansive use of public nuisance law.
ATRA President Tiger Joyce spoke with Juliette Farley of the Southern California Record about Lawsuit Abuse Awareness Week and business interruption lawsuits.