BIG SUPRISE! SOUTH CAROLINA CAPS DON'T BRING LOWER PREMIUMS

One year after medical malpractice caps became the law in South Carolina, a recent article in Greenville News reported that med mal insurance premiums are still going up. The article, written by Liv Osby noted that the caps became law in July of 2005. Pain and suffering awards in South Carolina are now limited to $350,000. Supporters of the caps argued that they were necessary to reduce high jury awards, which, they claim, lead to soaring malpractice premiums, and, doctor flight. So, a year later in South Carolina....

Malpractice premiums continue to go up. But, according to Gerald Harmon, M.D., President of the South Carolina Medical Association, the increased premiums were expected. According to Dr. Harmon, "We did not expect to see an immediate reduction in the rates. We are hoping to see a flattening of the rates and perhaps in the future, lower rates." Hoping to see a flattening of rates? Lower rates perhaps in the future? Med Mal caps proponents have consistently screamed a very simple formula: caps = lower verdicts and lower premiums. So why does Dr. Harmon sound so cautious? Because he probably knows that premiums will continue to go up. They will continue to go up for a very simple reason. The insurance companies made bad investments decisions the last several years. Returns weren't what they hoped for. Quick fix? Point the finger at trial lawyers and say that runaway verdicts are causing doctors to flee the state and increasing insurance costs. But, as more data comes in, it is increasingly clear the propaganda spread by "tort reformers" simply isn't true.

Some examples from South Carolina:

Tort Reform claim: high premiums cause some doctors to leave the state, and others to stop performing high-risk procedures.

Fact: According to the State Budget and Control Board Office of Research and Statistics, South Carolina gained 800 doctors between 2000 and 2005, with gains in obstetrics, neurosurgery and emergency medicine, traditionally three high risk specialties.

Tort Reform Claim: med mal claims are increasing.

Fact: According to a Public Citizen analysis, between 1991 and 2004, med mal suits dropped by nearly 10%.

Tort Reform Claim: there are more and more multi-million dollar verdicts in med mal cases.

Fact: Between 1991 and 2004, the number of multi-million dollar payouts declined 56%, but during the same time period, premiums continued to increase!

Sadly, the insurance industry/tort reform movement continues to do a far superior job communicating their message than trial lawyers. As a result, caps get shoved down our throats by the insurance industry, despite increasing evidence that caps have little if any impact on premiums.

SANTORUM HYPOCRISY

The ITLA Website had an interesting link to a September 5, 2006 opinion piece written by Mary Shaw in OpEdNews.com. Mary pointed out the hypocrisy of Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, presently involved in a tight re-election campaign against Democratic challenger Bob Casey. Seems that Santorum is running ads blasting Casey for his failure to support tort reform. Shaw's article described how the Santorum pieces talk about all the poor, downtrodden doctors who are fleeing the state because of the big awards entered in med mal cases. In addition Santorum has been a vocal proponent of caps on non-economic damages[pain and suffering]in personal injury cases, at one point proposing a cap of $250,000.

And now, to borrow a phrase from Paul Harvey, for the rest of the story...What Rick doesn't mention is that he isn't always for caps. For example, when his wife sued her chiropractor in 1999 for $500,000. Rick didn't support caps in that instance, no sir. Seems caps on damages are only appropriate when the Senator is talking about people to whom he is not married. Then, by all means, caps are a good thing. The United State Senate will be a better place without this guy. November can't get here quick enough.

HIV VERDICT OVERTURNED

The Illinois Appellate Court recently overturned a landmark verdict on behalf of a woman who claimed her dead fiance had infected her with the HIV virus. As reported by Steve Patterson in the Chicago Sun Times September 4, 2006 News Archive, Jane Doe[not her real name]filed suit against her deceased lover, Albert Dilling, and his parents, for their failure to disclose Albert's HIV status. Doe claimed that Dilling and his family knew about his HIV status for years prior to his death. She asserted that when she asked Albert about alarming changes in his appearance he assured her the changes were due to non-HIV conditions. Doe also alleged that after she noticed her own symptoms, she asked Albert's parents about his HIV status. According to Doe, they assured her he was not HIV positive. Dilling's parents denied any such representations were made. The case went to trial and a jury awarded Doe $2 million in damages.

The Appellate Court however, reversed the trial court's decision. The ruling noted that Doe was suspicious about Dilling's health long before she ever met Dilling's parents, and could have been tested instead of relying upon their alleged representations. The Court also ruled that since Dilling's parents denied they knew he was HIV positive, Doe was not deceived. Doe, who is presently suffering from an aggressive form of HIV, plans to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.