Medical malpractice — how much is too much?
Twenty-four states now have caps on the amount of noneconomic damages a plaintiff can get in medical malpractice cases. Why? Many feel such cases are often frivolous, that plaintiffs ask for more money than is reasonable, and that greedy lawyers are to blame for escalating damages. According to an article by David A. Hyman in Forbes Magazine, however, these caps are hurting more than helping–they are hurting those who truly cannot afford the economic consequences of negligently caused injuries.
Medical malpractice cases aren’t always without merit. Hyman reports that the negligently injured must deal with two kinds of damages: economic and noneconomic. Economic damages include lost wages and medical bills, while noneconomic damages cover pain and suffering. The caps placed by states concern noneconomic damages. If the damages suffered by a plaintiff are primarily economic, then a cap on noneconomic damages is of little consequence. Such a cap does, however, significantly impact poor, unemployed, or elderly plaintiffs and their families, who rely on noneconomic damages to help cover costs, such as attorney fees. For instance, an elderly plaintiff may not have lost earnings to recoup, which diminishes the amount of economic damages in a case. His only hope, then, are noneconomic damages. In a state with a cap on these pain-and-suffering damages such as California, which has a cap of $250,000, the most a contingency-fee attorney could earn would be about $83,000, or less than what a lawyer is usually willing to accept. This leaves the plaintiff without proper legal counsel, and without counsel, there is no case.
Hyman shares an example in the article: a 72-year-old healthy woman goes into the hospital for a routine knee joint replacement in both knees. After her surgery, while still in the hospital, she develops complete bowel obstruction. Despite consultations about the symptoms, the condition is neither diagnosed nor treated, and the patient dies. The hospital is slapped with a citation by the California Department of Public Health for failing to properly monitor the patient’s condition. Despite such evidence to support a medical malpractice suit, the patient’s family was turned away by two dozen lawyers before finding one willing to accept the case. Why? Because the cap on noneconomic damages made the case unattractive to attorneys. And the most the family could gain after paying attorney fees and expenses? $160,000.
Hyman sums up his observations as follows: “Noneconomic damages can be excessive, but they are intended to compensate for real suffering, and they are the only way some plaintiffs can get legal help. Sudden and dramatic increases in medical malpractice premiums may well constitute a crisis. But it is hard to believe that the solution is to make doctors and hospitals pay when they injure a person with a good job but not when they hurt someone who is elderly or unemployed.”
This entry was posted on Friday, September 5th, 2008 at 6:18 pm and is filed under Legal, Patient Care, Patient Death. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
