Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Caps on Damages

Supreme Court to Hear Oral Arguments on Caps on Damages
Statute is challenged after a medical malpractice victim’s face
literally falls off after surgery

Atlanta, GA-- On Tuesday, September 15, 2009, the Georgia Supreme Court will hear oral arguments regarding the constitutionality of the provision that caps the amount of damages a victim of medical malpractice can secure from a jury. The plaintiffs in the case of Betty Nestlehutt and Bruce Nestlehutt v. Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C., will argue that the Georgia Supreme Court should uphold the trial court judge’s finding that O.C.G.A. § 51-13-1, as enacted in 2005, is unconstitutional.

The case arose from a medical malpractice claim filed by Adam Malone and Frank Ilardi on behalf of their clients Betty Nestlehutt and her husband Bruce Nestlehutt in the Fulton County State Court in October of 2008. Married for over 50 years, the Nestlehutts raised two children and they shared a real estate business. Bruce handled the behind-the-scenes work, and Betty, a people-person by nature, focused on client and public interaction. Competition was tough and as Betty aged she found that more and more clients seemed to prefer younger agents. So, at seventy-one years of age, Betty Nestlehutt, after much thought and consideration, sought consultation with Dr. Harvey P. Cole of Atlanta Oculoplastic Surgery, P.C. concerning bags under her eyes and lines around her mouth. Dr. Cole recommended she undergo several surgical procedures including a simultaneous CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift.

Having both the CO2 laser resurfacing and full facelift done together is well-known by practicing cosmetic surgeons to be risky, as the chance of damaging the facial blood supply is greatly increased on a patient of Betty’s age and complexion. However, based on her doctor’s recommendation, Betty went through the combination of procedures and the blood supply to her face was, in fact, severely damaged.

After the surgery, the skin on Betty’s face struggled to live without its usual blood supply and after a 3-week period, died completely, leaving the once fair-skinned wife and mother with huge, gaping wounds from her temple to her jaw line, covering both sides of her face and over both of her cheeks to her chin. Betty Nestlehutt’s face, quite literally, fell off.

“Betty Nestlehutt was the face of her real estate business,” said Malone. “Her face was so horrifically disfigured that she was no longer able to even leave her house. Photographs of her disfigurement are even too gruesome for public distribution. The damage is permanent. Years later she has to wear layers of special makeup to try to give the appearance of normalcy.”

After hearing the testimony and considering all of the evidence, a jury of 12 returned with a verdict in the Nestlehutts’ favor which included a recovery of money damages for her past and future medical expenses, for damage to her relationship with her husband and $900,000 in “non-economic” damages for the devastation of her quality of life. The verdict exceeded the $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages enacted as part of SB 3 in 2005. Judge Diane Bessen declared unconstitutional the statute capping a jury’s verdict and now her decision, upon the defendant’s appeal, is before the Supreme Court.

“Judge Bessen’s order appropriately concluded that a one-size fits all predetermined cap on damages violates several protections guaranteed by the Georgia Constitution,” said Malone. “Her order balances the rights of all Georgians, young and old, rich and poor, and restores the guarantees set forth by our Constitution that were stripped away in 2005.”

Judge Bessen’s order declares the caps on damages provision unconstitutional because it violates three basic constitutional tenets: the right to trial by jury, the separation of powers doctrine and equal protection of the laws.

Under SB 3, the jury’s deliberation regarding the amount of damages to be awarded is preempted by a legislatively imposed cap—no matter how severe or catastrophic the case before them. Historically, a jury had the ability to decide the fate of its peers constrained only by the particular facts of an individual’s case, as the Founding Fathers intended. Thomas Jefferson once said, “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its Constitution.”

In her order, Judge Bessen wrote:

A limit or cap on noneconomic damages, however, invades the right to a jury trial by usurping one of the fact-finding responsibilities of the jury. If the amount of noneconomic damages awarded by the jury exceeds the statutory cap, this Code section automatically and arbitrarily reduces the verdict, without consideration of the evidence, the record, or any other fact produced at trial and found by the jury. The limitations imposed by O.C.G.A. 51-13-1 render the right of the jury to assess damages meaningless… The cap so interferes with the determination of the jury that it renders the right of a jury trial wholly unavailable.

Additionally, Judge Bessen also found that the cap on damages violates the Separation of Powers Doctrine contained in the Georgia Constitution. Three other states’ supreme courts, with similar constitutional provisions, also have struck down caps on damages on this basis. The Georgia Constitution states that: “The legislative, judicial and executive powers shall forever remain separate and distinct, and no person discharging the duties of one, shall, at the same time, exercise the functions of either of the others.” One distinct function of the judicial branch is that judges have the exclusive right to award to a party a “remittitur” – or a new trial – if a judge finds that a verdict is either excessive or inadequate. Judge Bessen’s order declares the cap on damages statute to be a “legislative remittitur” and that the legislature has unconstitutionally invaded the exclusive role of the judiciary to find facts and control judgments.

“Equally important,” the judge writes, “it does so without the option of a new trial for the injured plaintiff. As such, it unduly encroaches upon the judiciary’s constitutional right and prerogative to determine whether a jury’s assessment of damages is either too excessive or too inadequate within the meaning of the law.”

The third violation of the Constitution Judge Bessen found was that a cap on damages violates the Equal Protection provisions of the Georgia Constitution which state: “No persons shall be denied the equal protection of the laws.” To examine this violation, Judge Bessen explored whether there was a “rational relationship” between the government’s purpose and its enacted statute which treats similar parties in very different, unequal ways.

The rational relationship test basically states that a statute may be valid as long as it has a rational relationship to a governmental purpose. In the case of SB 3, the government’s stated purpose was to “promote predictability and improvement in the provision of quality health care services and the resolution of healthcare claims..., assist in promoting the provision of healthcare liability insurance by insurance providers…, [and addressed concerns about] medical providers and facilities leaving the state and the cost of malpractice awards.” For a law to be valid, a rational relationship to those goals must be proven. Judge Bessen found that the cap on damages failed the rational relationship test completely.

In holding the cap on damages provision unconstitutional, Judge Bessen wrote:

After review, this Court finds that there is no rational relationship between statute and the expressed government interest. Most obviously, it is a complete contradiction to state that the overall quality of healthcare would be improved by shielding negligent healthcare providers from liability. In fact, as recognized by other courts, a cap on noneconomic damages actually diminishes tort liability for healthcare providers and diminishes the deterrent effect of tort law… There is absolutely no evidence that these objectives are achieved by imposing a financial burden on the most victimized of plaintiffs… Based on current statistics, limiting noneconomic damage caps is not rationally related to the state purpose of reducing medical malpractice insurance rates… it appears that this statute was enacted arbitrarily, based upon speculation and conjecture rather than empirical data.

Finally, Judge Bessen found that the cap on damages violates Equal Protection because it creates different classes of victims—those injured by healthcare providers and those injured by others and those who are catastrophically injured and those who are less severely injured. Judge Bessen penned, “The cap’s greatest impact falls on those who are most severely injured, and creates classes of fully compensated victims and those only partially compensated… Similarly, the noneconomic damages cap discriminates against low-income individuals who are unable to prove large economic damages but nonetheless may sustain large noneconomic damages.”

The President of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association, Chris Clark, has been following this case closely.

“As a trial lawyer, I represent the person, who, through no fault of their own, has been injured—sometimes severely. They miss work, accrue medical bills and—often most important to them—they suffer a loss of the quality of life that they once had,” said Clark. “Betty Nestlehutt’s severe disfigurement – which she had no part in creating – has diminished her quality of life and, in turn her husband’s and her family’s. Judge Bessen’s order was fair, upheld our Constitution, and reflected the rule of law that has stood firm since the inception of this nation.”

The argument on Tuesday was prepared by Malone and attorneys Darren Summerville of Bird Law Group, P.C. and Michael Terry of Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, LLP. AARP, Voices for Georgia’s Children, Georgia Women for a Change and Georgia Watch all filed Amicus Briefs in support of Betty and Bruce Nestlehutt.

###

'Tort Reform' would not lower healthcare costs

The New York Times blog, "Prescriptions: Making Sense of the Health Care Debate" posted an informative interview on August 31, 2009. Author Annie Underwood interviews Tom Baker, professor of law and health sciences at the University of Pennsylvania School of Law, about so-called "tort reform" and the national health care debate.

Q.

A lot of people seem to have taken up the cause of tort reform. Why isn’t it included in the health care legislation pending on Capitol Hill?

A.

Because it’s a red herring. It’s become a talking point for those who want to obstruct change. But [tort reform] doesn’t accomplish the goal of bringing down costs.

Q.

Why not?

A.

As the cost of health care goes up, the medical liability component of it has stayed fairly constant. That means it’s part of the medical price inflation system, but it’s not driving it. The number of claims is small relative to actual cases of medical malpractice.

Q.

But critics of the current system say that 10 to 15 percent of medical costs are due to medical malpractice.

A.

That’s wildly exaggerated. According to the actuarial consulting firm Towers Perrin, medical malpractice tort costs were $30.4 billion in 2007, the last year for which data are available. We have a more than a $2 trillion health care system. That puts litigation costs and malpractice insurance at 1 to 1.5 percent of total medical costs. That’s a rounding error. Liability isn’t even the tail on the cost dog. It’s the hair on the end of the tail.

Q.

You said the number of claims is relatively small. Is there a way to demonstrate that?

A.

We have approximately the same number of claims today as in the late 1980s. Think about that. The cost of health care has doubled since then. The number of medical encounters between doctors and patients has gone up — and research shows a more or less constant rate of errors per hospitalizations. That means we have a declining rate of lawsuits relative to numbers of injuries.

Q.

Do you have numbers on injuries and claims?

A.

The best data on medical errors come from three major epidemiological studies on medical malpractice in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s. Each found about one serious injury per 100 hospitalizations. There hasn’t been an epidemiological study since then, because people were really persuaded by the data and it’s also very expensive to do a study of that sort. These data were the basis of the 1999 report from the Institute of Medicine, “To Err Is Human.”

Q.

And what percent of victims make claims?

A.

Those same studies looked at the rate of claims and found that only 4 to 7 percent of those injured brought a case. That’s a small percentage. And because the actual number of injuries has gone up since those studies were done — while claims have remained steady — the rate of claims is actually going down.

Q.

So the idea that there are lots of frivolous lawsuits is . . .

A.

Ludicrous.

Q.

In those cases that are brought, are jury awards excessive?

A.

There are already caps on awards in many states. These tend to be on non-economic damages — not medical expenses or lost wages, but typically on pain and suffering. The first was in California in the 1970s. There is pretty good research on that, showing it reduced medical liability payments. These caps vary from state to state, but they’re generally set around $250,000 to $500,000.

Q.

Many people would think that a quarter-million to a half-million dollars is a lot of money for pain and suffering.

A.

When California adopted its cap in the mid-1970s, it set it at $250,000. That doesn’t mean everyone got that much. It was the maximum. But that was considered a fair amount at the time. Since then, think how much inflation has eaten into that. These caps typically don’t index for inflation.

Q.

So a patient can get reimbursed for medical costs, but they’re limited for pain and suffering.

A. They get reimbursement of medical costs in principle. But in fact, they don’t, because the lawyer has to be paid. These cases can cost $100,000 to $150,000 to bring, so the patient has to deduct that amount from any award.

Q.

Why are these cases so expensive?

A.

You need expert witnesses who must be compensated for their time, which is valuable. You need depositions, which are expensive. You have to hire investigators. You have to pay your junior staff. It’s not worth bringing a suit if the potential award is less.

Imagine you go to the emergency room with appendicitis. For whatever reason, they fail to diagnose it. Your appendix bursts, and you spend a couple weeks in the hospital. I’ve had lawyers tell me they would not take a case like that, even if it’s a slam-dunk. The damages wouldn’t be enough — medical expenses, maybe a month of lost salary, although the patient might have short-term disability insurance that would cover a large part of that. It’s not enough to justify going to court.

Q.

So you’re saying that a case has to be serious to be worth trying.

A.

The medical malpractice system only works for serious injuries. What it doesn’t work for is more moderate ones. Lawyers discourage people from bringing suits if their injuries are not serious in monetary terms — a poor person or an older person who can’t claim a lot in lost wages. That’s why obstetrician-gynecologists pay such high premiums. If you injure a baby, you’re talking about a lifetime-care injury. Gerontologists’ premiums are exceedingly low.

That’s the reason I say if people are serious about tort reform, they should improve compensation for moderate injuries. Nobody likes that idea, by the way. They say it would make the system more expensive, not less expensive. More people would bring claims. That says to me that the critics are not serious about tort reform.

Q.

But it’s not just the cost of premiums and litigation. What about the charge that it causes doctors to practice “defensive medicine,” ordering tests that are expensive and unnecessary?

A.

A 1996 study in Florida found defensive medicine costs could be as high as 5 to 7 percent. But when the same authors went back a few years later, they found that managed care had brought it down to 2.5 to 3.5 percent of the total. No one has a good handle on defensive medicine costs. Liability is supposed to change behavior, so some defensive medicine is good. Undoubtedly some of it may be unnecessary, but we don’t have a good way to separate the two.

Q.

Tell me more about the 1996 study.

A.

It was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics by Stanford economist Daniel Kessler and Dr. Mark McClellan, who was head of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services under President George W. Bush. For two types of heart disease — heart attacks and ischemic heart disease — the authors found that 5 to 7 percent of the additional costs in Florida, compared to other states with lower medical malpractice liability, could be attributed to defensive medicine. This was based on 1980s data.

Using that estimate, some politicians used to say that medical malpractice cost the system $50 billion a year. But you can’t blindly say that all diseases are the same as heart disease, and if you want a nationwide estimate, you can’t say every state is the same as Florida. Furthermore, the second study, published in 2002 in The Journal of Public Economics, found that much of the difference disappeared as managed care took hold in Florida in the 1990s.

Q.

But many doctors complain about having to practice defensive medicine.

A.

Doctors will say that. But when you dig down, you find that what’s really happening is that doctors tend to do what other doctors around them do. They go along with the prevailing standard of care in their region — which in many cases isn’t even a state, but a city or county.

Q.

If medical malpractice doesn’t explain the high costs of our health-care system, what does?

A.

A variety of things. The American population is aging. We’ve had advances in technology that are expensive. We’re also a rich nation, and the richer you get, the more money you spend on health care. And compared to other countries, we have heavy administrative costs from the private-insurance system.

Q.

If it’s not true that medical malpractice is driving the high cost of medical care in this country, why won’t the argument go away?

A.

It makes sense to people intuitively — in part, because they’ve been told it so often. And it’s a convenient argument for those who want to derail the process. Maybe it’s a deep political game. Maybe they’re raising it to say, we’ll back off tort reform if you back off the public option.

Q.

What about former Senator Bill Bradley’s idea that medical courts with special judges should be established?

A.

Mr. Bradley has been backing tort reform for as long as I can remember, so this is hardly a compromise for him. I’m not saying medical courts would be a bad idea, as long as they’re not set up in a way that insulates medical providers from responsibility. That’s a big caveat.

Q.

What about Senator John Kerry’s assertion that it’s “doable” to rid the system of frivolous lawsuits?

A.

I guess it’s doable because there aren’t very many frivolous suits.

Stella Awards and Fake "News" Reports

From Texas Lawyer Bob Kraft, this on point comment on how many items of "news" on the web are simply false:

"The e-mail about the "Stella Awards" has been circulating for years, and so have articles proving these stupid stories are lies. But the e-mail just won’t die. The latest newspaper column debunking the Stella awards was printed yesterday in the Houston Chronicle. Take a look. The article concludes:

Here’s the lesson: The next time an Internet tale makes you think things are even worse than you thought, check it out. Especially when the tale suggests that the American system is stacked against wealthy corporations.

One easy way: www.snopes.com, an excellent site that investigates urban myths. It took less than 30 seconds to ask for "Stella Awards" and receive the verdict: "False."

Well said Mr. Kraft.

Texting While Driving: 2 Scientists Killed in Utah

After a crash here that killed two scientists — and prompted a dogged investigation by a police officer and local victim’s advocate — Utah passed the nation’s toughest law to crack down on texting behind the wheel. Offenders now face up to 15 years in prison.

The new law, which took effect in May, penalizes a texting driver who causes a fatality as harshly as a drunken driver who kills someone. In effect, a crash caused by such a multitasking motorist is no longer considered an “accident” like one caused by a driver who, say, runs into another car because he nodded off at the wheel. Instead, such a crash would now be considered inherently reckless.

“It’s a willful act,” said Lyle Hillyard, a Republican state senator and a big supporter of the new measure. “If you choose to drink and drive or if you choose to text and drive, you’re assuming the same risk.”

The Utah law represents a concrete new response in an evolving debate among legislators around the country about how to reduce the widespread practice of multitasking behind the wheel — a topic to be discussed at a national conference about the dangers of distracted driving that is being organized by the Transportation Department for this fall.

Studies show that talking on a cellphone while driving is as risky as driving with a .08 blood alcohol level — generally the standard for drunken driving — and that the risk of driving while texting is at least twice that dangerous. Research also shows that many people are aware that the behavior is risky, but they assume others are the problem.

Source here.

Stella Awards

The Stella Awards® were inspired by Stella Liebeck, the Plaintiff in the McDonald's coffee case. Some folks may know that The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body,
including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds refused.

There are many debunked jury "award" reports linked to the claimed awards.

From their own site:

"Many stories are going around the 'net saying they are "The Stella Awards". Many of these stories are false, made-up, or (sometimes) true stories with false elements added to them.

The sad part: despite these stories having been debunked years ago, they not only still circulate, but many reporters, columnists and radio "personalities" still talk about them as if they were true, which says a lot about their professionalism. In many outrageous cases, these lazy "news" people will even link to this site as the source of these silly lies."


Claimed Cases -Status:

Kathleen Robertson of Austin, Texas, was awarded $780,000 by a jury after breaking her ankle tripping over a toddler who was running amuck inside a furniture store. The owners of the store were understandably surprised at the verdict, considering the misbehaving tyke was Ms. Robertson's son. Fabricated.

Carl Truman, 19, of Los Angeles won $74,000 and medical expenses when his neighbor ran his hand over with a Honda Accord. Mr. Truman apparently didn't notice someone was at the wheel of the car whose hubcap he was trying to steal. Fabricated.

Terrence Dickson of Bristol, Penn., was exiting a house he finished robbing by way of the garage. He was not able to get the garage door to go up because the automatic door opener was malfunctioning. He couldn't re-enter the house because the door connecting the house and garage locked when he pulled it shut. The family was on vacation, so Mr. Dickson found himself locked in the garage for eight days. He subsisted on a case of Pepsi he found, and a large bag of dry dog food. Dickson sued the homeowner's insurance claiming the situation caused him undue mental anguish. The jury agreed to the tune of half a million dollars and change.Fabricated.

Jerry Williams of Little Rock, Arkansas, was awarded $14,500 and medical expenses after being bitten on the buttocks by his next door neighbor's beagle. The beagle was on a chain in its owner's fenced-in yard, as was Mr. Williams. The award was less than sought after because the jury felt the dog may have been provoked by Mr. Williams who, at the time, was shooting it repeatedly with a pellet gun. Fabricated.

A Philadelphia restaurant was ordered to pay Amber Carson of Lancaster, Pennsylvania $113,500 after she slipped on a spilled soft drink and broke her coccyx. The beverage was on the floor because Ms. Carson threw it at her boyfriend 30 seconds earlier during an argument. Fabricated.

Kara Walton of Claymont, Delaware, successfully sued the owner of a nightclub in a neighboring city when she fell from the bathroom window to the floor and knocked out her two front teeth. This occurred while Ms. Walton was trying to sneak through the window in the ladies room to avoid paying the $3.50 cover charge. She was awarded $12,000 and dental expenses. Fabricated.

The "winner" every year: In November, Mr. Grazinski purchased a brand new 32 foot Winnebago motor home. On his first trip home, having joined the freeway, he set the cruise control at 70 mph and calmly left the drivers seat to go into the back and make himself a cup of coffee. Not surprisingly, the Winnie left the freeway, crashed and overturned. Mr. Grazinski sued Winnebago for not advising him in the handbook that he could not actually do this. He was awarded $1,750,000 plus a new Winnebago. Fabricated.

Don't be fooled into believing all that you read on the web.

Diet Drug May Be Linked To Liver Damage

Xenical and its over-the-counter replica sold by GlaxoSmithKline are under strict scrutiny after the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) received 32 reports of serious liver damage in those taking the weight loss pills.

Six of these cases resulted in liver failure and over 20 were hospitalized due to severe injury sustained to their liver.

However, since no definite link has been established between the use of the drug and liver injury, the FDA has released a comment saying that those who are currently taking the pills should continue to do so as directed.

"The FDA's analysis of these data is ongoing, and no definite association between liver injury and Orlistat [which markets itself under Xenical and Alli] has been established at this time," the administration said.

The nonprescription version of Xenical sold in the United States is Alli. Alli is a popular brand, which built its credibility by heavily advertising that was the first FDA approved weight loss drug on the market.

Since the health concerns have risen, many asset management groups are concerned with what these alleged correlations between their drugs and the risks they are being linked to will do to their sales.

Mike Krensavage, principal of Krensavage Asset Management LLC said, “Any time the FDA raises an issue like this, demand is likely to suffer, at least temporarily.”

Krensavage seems to be right.

After making $197 million in profit overseas and another $125 million here on American soil so far in 2009, Glaxo shares have fell nearly 1.5 percent on the New York Stock Exchange.

Read the FDA report HERE.

Tort Reform is Just a Distraction

Marietta Daily Journal
Guest Column
August 13, 2009

Tort Reform is Just a Distraction
98,000 Americans die each year from medical errors; let’s focus on real healthcare solutions

By: Lance Cooper

Whenever health care reform is proposed, some people instinctively think more so-called ‘tort reform’ should be the solution to the debate (see Marietta Daily Journal, 8-10-09). This effort diverts us from the real issue at hand—affordable, attainable and safe healthcare. Insurance companies and others who are fearful of accountability for medical negligence regularly employ the “Deny and Distract” routine. First, when faced with hard numbers and legitimate research placing blame not on lawyers, but on their own industries, they ‘Deny’ any accountability. Then they employ methods of ‘Distraction’ to tear us off the course to finding real solutions. ‘Tort reform’ is such a distraction.

Supporters of ‘tort reform’ argue that the threat of lawsuits makes doctors order unnecessary tests to protect themselves—a phenomenon they call “defensive medicine”—and yet there is no evidence to support those claims. Studies conducted by the Congressional Budget Office and the Government Accountability Office have all cast doubts that such a thing called ‘defensive medicine’ even exists. Take McAllen, Texas, home of the most expensive health care in the country—despite having draconian ‘tort reform’ laws and the same caps on damages that we have in Georgia, the doctors routinely order excessive testing and procedures. They do so not for fear of lawsuits but because the fee-for-service structure actually encourages them to. In other words, the more tests they perform, the more they get paid.

Claims of ‘frivolous lawsuits’ driving up healthcare costs is another regularly deployed method of distraction. Georgia, and the rest of the nation, already has laws against filing these so-called “frivolous lawsuits.” Comprising leaders of the medical field, The New England Journal of Medicine published a study concluding that “portraits of a malpractice system that is stricken with frivolous litigation are overblown.” And the overall number of medical malpractice cases is low; less than 1% of all civil cases are medical malpractice cases.

Another frequently echoed distraction is the notion that doctors are fleeing and causing physician shortages because of liability concerns and increased malpractice insurance premiums caused by lawsuits. Once again, this distraction is false. Data from the American Medical Association (AMA) show that physician numbers have been increasing across the board for many years. And the number of physicians is significantly higher in states without caps on damages. The National Bureau of Economic Research found that ‘tort reform’ laws do not avert physician shortages, nor do they lead to greater, more efficient patient care.

Patient care is what really matters at this point. Preventable medical errors and mistakes is the leading cause of accidental death in the nation. Just 6% of doctors are responsible for nearly 60% of negligent care—and the Civil Justice System is the only effective means of holding them accountable. In Texas, after the $250,000 cap on damages was imposed, thereby freeing negligent doctors from accountability, the number of complaints against Texas doctors to the Medical Board rose from 2,942 to 6,000 in just one year. Proposed ‘tort reform’ measures do nothing but fill the coffers of malpractice insurance companies—the same companies who have raised premium rates on the doctors while civil claims have remained stable and, in most states have gone down.

Further dismantling our uniquely American system of accountability by enacting more ‘tort reform’ would be disastrous. We can’t forget what just happened with Wall Street vs. Main Street or the crash of AIG. The insurance industry and their special interest groups are utilizing a tired relic of gotcha-politics—blame the lawyers and hope Americans forget about the record bonuses being paid to insurance industry executives after the taxpayers bailed them out. Amazingly, insurance special interest groups with their call for more ‘tort reform,’ want to deprive Americans who just bailed them out of constitutionally protected access to our judicial system. Let’s ignore those distractions. Taking away patients’ Constitutional right to seek justice in a fair court of law, when they have been injured through no fault of their own, does nothing to improve our health care system nor does it increase patient safety. And it is, simply, un-American.

Lance Cooper of Powder Springs is past president of the Georgia Trial Lawyers Association and is a past president of the Cobb Trial Lawyers Association. He holds a degree in economics from Cal-Berkeley and a law degree from Emory University.

http://www.mdjonline.com/content/index/showcontentitem/area/1/section/17/item/138109.html

Dead by Mistake-- Medical Error kills Trevor Nelson

www.deadbymistake.com

Hearst Newspapers go in-depth researching the number 1 cause of accidental death in America-- medical errors and mistakes.

How are there 98,000 preventable deaths a year in this nation?

Click HERE to read the full account of Trevor Nelson's death.

Healthy woman dies during childbirth after bleeding for 16 hours-- a preventable death

Read all about Hearst Newspapers national expose on the number one cause of accidental death in the United States-- medical errors and mistakes at www.deadbymistake.com

The entire story of this young mother's death is available HERE.

Dead By Mistake-- case video

Meet Sharon Moore-- 1 of 5 patients of Dr. Earl's who were killed by an overdose prescribed by the doctor. Her entire story is HERE.

Check out www.deadbymistake.com

Compiled by Hearst Newspapers, www.deadbymistake.com is a site housing all the stories run about the 98,000 people who are killed every year from medical errors.