A new study suggests that medical malpractice
jury awards are not significantly lower in states
that already limit compensation for a patient's
pain and suffering. Instead, lawyers are finding
clever ways around the limits, either by
emphasizing their clients' medical expenses or
by placing a dollar value on domestic services,
such as housekeeping. The study, by Columbia
University law Professor Catherine M. Sharkey to
be published in May in the New York University
Law Review, has drawn criticism from supporters
of so-called "tort reform," who believe that
limiting jury awards will lead to lower
insurance premiums for doctors. They also
criticized the study for considering only jury
awards, and not out-of-court settlements. But
attorneys and victims' advocates say that there
might be something to the study's suggestion
that plaintiffs' lawyers are working the system
to maximize compensation for their clients.
Particularly intriguing, they said, is the idea
that lawyers are successfully expanding the
definition of "economic" damages to include
damages traditionally classified as
"noneconomic" damages. ATLA member Ronald S.
Motil, president of the Madison County Bar
Association, said that the study appeared to
support his position that limiting jury awards
would not reduce insurance premiums for doctors.
Motil seized on one theory put forth in
Sharkey's study - that jurors decide what they
think an injury is worth and then find a way to
award that amount, regardless of limits on
certain types of awards.
William Lamb, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, 03/19/2005
For complete story, search
$ - The St. Louis Post-Dispatch charges $2.95 for each
archived article retrieved
