Comments about ‘Utah Legislature: House passes measure to limit malpractice awards’

This is a good thing for the State of Utah. The size of frivolous malpractice awards is only the tip of the iceberg as far as medical costs go. The problem arises in the fact that physicians are forced to practice defensive medicine because of unreasonable jury awards. Any physician must always contemplate the possibility of standing before an unethical trial lawyer and a sympathetic jury and be asked if he ordered a certain lab test. If his answer is "no," he will be pilloried before the jury despite the fact that the lab test may have been of questionable value. Furthermore, how does an OB/Gyn doctor prove that he did "not" cause a certain defect? This is why so few new physicians go into that specialty.

Now it is important to look to the malpractice insurers to be sure they reduce their malpractice insurance rates to physicians in view of the new legislation. This should not be a windfall for the insurance companies.

How does decreasing the caps relieve a doctor of having to stand before a jury and be asked if he ordered a certain lab test? The question can still be asked, though there may be fewer dollars at stake.

You don't get the connection?

If there are fewer dollars to obtain via unethical/frivolous malpractice lawsuits, there will be fewer frivolous malpractice lawsuits filed.

You're welcome.

Now that the medical industry in Utah has further limited our right to justice and fair compensation for incompetent doctors on their payrolls, they have the green light to do more harm and incompetent medical procedures.

What was left out of this argument is that many malpractice law suits have never been paid yet as they defer justice until the injured die from the incompetence in their treatment. Then after the lawyers take their 50% of awards that leaves the injured with even less compensation.

Rewarding incompetence is a big mistake by making the injured suffer not only financially but with in pain. If the legislators choose to put a cap on injustice then they should also put a cap on medical fees and lawyer fees. Make the doctors also pay the lawyers of the injured over and above these pitiful awards. Either way the injured remain the loser even if they win.

Hi Everybody, Thank You Utah state legislature, Malpractice suits were costing way too much in Springfield, Attorney Lionel Hutz made it hard to break even, but finally reason prevails in a State as Elevated as Utah. I also understand that I will be able to bring my gun into the operating room, boy that could have come in handy before. I will let all my doctor type friends know of this advancement in the health care system in Utah. Perhaps we could do away with those costly regulations about cleanliness, and standards too, We'll talk when I get there.

If the lawsuits are frivolous/unethical, they won't win anyway, so the size of the cap is irrelevant. Since Utah law requires expert testimony from a doctor in the field in order to prove a malpractice claim, I'm not sure how many frivolous or unethical lawsuits are filed.

But, thank you anyway.

Think it through better. The insurance companies still have the expense of representing the doctor that is being sued in a frivolous lawsuit. Regardless of the outcome of the suit that is still an expense to the insurer that is being passed on to the Doctors. With less incentive ( in the form of lower potential payout due to lowering malpractice caps ) there will be less suits over all allowing insurance companies to charge lower rates to doctors since the attendant risk is lower. That then allows the Dr. to charge lower rates since his malpractice coverage is no longer eating as much of his/her income.

funy how free market fans want lawsuits regulated to death and then turn around and want us all to just trust big business to do the right thing and the market to correct itself with no rules or regulations on their behaviors. Does anything seem wrong with that picture?

Sigh. The cost of healthcare won't go down one cent. All your doing is limiting your own recourse of the courts and ensuring that going to the hospital becomes even more dangerous than it is.

Why replace health care by lawyer care? Ads to cut drunk driving? Okay. Wearisome TV spiels of fridge magnets plus a really small post-accident award to accident "victim" Ben G., shown moving mighty fast for an accident victim, and far healthier than the corporate lawyer out golfing and laughing about a "really small" settlement? Where's the barf bag?

Or a sumptuous courtroom built, an ad says, to better train their attorneys to win cases for their clients? All at public expense, driving up medical costs via extra lab tests whose only purpose is protection in court. More barf bags needed. Real judges should have such fine facilities.

Check out Bernard Goldberg's 2005 best-seller "100 People Who Are Screwing Up America". #16: John Edwards. His first case "earned" $6.5 Million won by claiming Cerebral Palsy was "caused" by an OB waiting too long to do a cesarean birth. Not so. Goldberg noted the vast majority of CP defects occur long before birth. But 1970 cesarean birth rates of 4% are 25% now, and far costlier: Cesareans are major surgery, plus longer stays. Great cost savings -- NOT! Less lawsuits, better care, lower health costs. Well done.

Overall this is a good thing for Utah. By lowering the cap on malpractice awards it will limit the amount of alleged malpractice suits. Many of which were settled in order to just make them go away. With less risk of being sued it will drive down the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors and they will lower the cost for their services as well. Why would this affect the quality of service that the patients are provided? Malpractice laws are still in place that protect patients. This only changes the amount of the award not the punishment if found guilty of malpractice.