House Committee Approves Bill that Caps Certain Malpractice Damages

The House Judiciary Committee on Tuesday narrowly approved a bill that would cap certain medical malpractice awards at $250,000

Known as the Protecting Access to Care Act, the bill would limit damages awarded in lawsuits to patients who received healthcare through a federal program, tax benefit or subsidy. This would include healthcare provided under Medicaid, Medicare or subsidized private plans through the Affordable Care Act.

The bill would also impact patients filing suit who received care through an employer-sponsored health plan, as premiums receive a federal tax exemption.

Proponents of the bill argue that the cap on damages would prevent frivolous malpractice suits, reduce the cost of malpractice premiums, allow physicians to better do their jobs, and improve access to healthcare.

Supporters of the bill use Texas as an example. Before enacting similar tort reforms in 2003, doctors fled the state due to its hostile litigation environment.

Several organizations support the Protecting Access to Care Act, including the American College of Cardiology, the American Medical Association, the American Hospital Association and the American College of Surgeons.

The Act, which was modeled after reform passed in California in 1975, would also impact malpractice attorney fees. Contingency fees would be limited to 40% of the first $50,000 awarded, 33% of the next $50,000 awarded, 25% of the next $500,000 awarded, and 15% of damages topping $600,000.

Future damages equaling $50,000 or more would be paid in installments rather than immediately. Clinicians who order devices or drugs for patients would be exempt from class action or liability suits.

The Fair Share rule would also be implemented, which would divide the damages among numerous defendants based on their percentage of responsibility.

The statute of limitations would also be reduced to three years after the injury, or one year after the injury was discovered, whichever comes first.

Democrats slammed the bill. Rep. John Conyers (D-MI) called the $250,000 cap to non-economic damages "unfair" to the poor, women, children and other members of society who will have a harder time proving they were economically damaged by the injury.

Democrats also condemned the bill for interfering with the right of states to form their own judicial system. Some state courts have ruled caps to noneconomic damages as unconstitutional, while others have upheld such caps. Some states have no caps at all, while others have caps that are much higher. In Maryland, the cap is set at $785,000.

Rep. Steve King (R-IA), author of the bill, said the legislation does not interfere with state rights. King says states are free to set higher or lower caps.

Advocates of the bill celebrated the approval.

"Instead of being able to focus on their patients, more and more doctors today are being forced to defend their reputations and professional decisions in the courtroom against claims that turn out, in most cases, to be without merit," said Health Coalition on Liability and Access.

Others are not convinced that the bill will improve access or safety. Rep. John Conyers Jr. said he believes the legislation would inadvertently protect medical device makers and pharmaceutical companies selling dangerous products.

Along with damage caps, the bill would also provide protection to drug companies in cases where patients were hurt by FDA-approved prescriptions.

Photo from Shutterstock