Houses passes bill to limit damages from medical malpractice lawsuits

I think it's a good idea. One reason medical costs are so high is because of abuse of lawsuits. It is a good first step in curbing the high medical costs.

As expected, every Democrat in the House voted against it, because, well, they are just LIKE that.

some details

The bill would cap noneconomic damages, such as emotional suffering, to $250,000. The bill would also establish a three-year statute of limitations after an injury, or one year after the discovery of an injury.

The provisions would apply to healthcare lawsuits where coverage was provided or subsidized by the federal government. The bill would preempt state laws, unless they already specify a shorter time period for the statute of limitations or a particular amount of damages that can be awarded in a lawsuit. Economic losses, like medical costs and lost wages, would be fully compensated.

And it saves quite a bit of money which can be used for something useful.

The Congressional Budget Office estimated that the legislation would reduce the deficit by about $50 billion over ten years.

thehill.com...

a reply to: allsee4eye

Interesting that this is limited to federal funded medical procedure. I agree with it in principle, but I'm not crazy about the 3 year limit. Additionally, isn't there a smidgen of hypocrisy in the federal government passing something like this when they're the same entity which fined tobacco companies Billions of dollars and allowed lawsuits with impacts that dated back decades to proceed against those companies?

This is a good start for reducing health care costs. But I agree with burdman that it would be better if the change was for all lawsuits and not only those where "coverage was provided or subsidized by the federal government".

a reply to: allsee4eye

Silly idea.

If someone is injured in an operation and can only sue for let's say $250,000. They could need a lot more $$ to get right. Or they could be f'd for life.

Want to guess who pays when someone can't work? Want to guess who pays medical when someone can't work (and get company medical coverage) and you want to guess who pays for food-housing? Tax payers.

The swamp continues to GROW!!!

The GOP has wanted to do this for years. Protect the powerful and the rich against the weak and vulnerable.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: allsee4eye

Silly idea.

If someone is injured in an operation and can only sue for let's say $250,000. They could need a lot more $$ to get right. Or they could be f'd for life.

Want to guess who pays when someone can't work? Want to guess who medical when someone can't work (and get company medical coverage) and you want to guess who pays for food-housing? Tax payers.

The swamp continues to GROW!!!

It says "the bill would cap noneconomic damages, such as emotional suffering, to $250,000"... so surgeries needed to fix damage would be above and beyond the cap on noneconomic damages. Right?

a reply to: seasonal
They have had medical malpractice tort reform in California since 1973. Set the maximum recovery at $250,000 and the legislature consistently refuses to adjust it for inflation. It has become very difficult to get a good attorney to handle a med mal suit. Google MICRA.

a reply to: Willtell

Yep this is govt protected industry.

The Dr. should be held responsible.This protects terrible Dr.s.

Wonder how much lobby money they shoved up the politicians willing b-holes?

Let the experiments commence.

Fair play house's, fair play.

And you folks are happy with this?

I'm sure this will do a lot to lower premiums and deductibles.


When you grow up children, kiss butt and be a DC lobbyist.

a reply to: seasonal

Rather than suing doctors, they should have done their research and picked a good doctor instead of picking a bad doctor in the first place.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: Willtell

Yep this is govt protected industry.

The Dr. should be held responsible.This protects terrible Dr.s.

Wonder how much lobby money they shoved up the politicians willing b-holes?

A hell of a lot

a reply to: allsee4eye

Right, it is the patients fault.

Try again.

a reply to: allsee4eye

Whoa ... many people don't have a choice of doctors because their choices are severely limited by their insurance. And in emergency situations where you are taken to the ER - well you take whoever you get.

Plus even the "best" doctors on paper can make mistakes and have a critical lapse of judgement.

a reply to: SwissJoe

You are correct. I used to be a paralegal for one of the top 10 medical malpractice attorneys in the usa. We were plaintiffs side usually wrongful death. Doctors kill patients through gross negilgence all the time in california. They get a hit on their insurance for 250k for the death of a patient under circumstances that would put them away for life for manslaughter or worse and they get to keep practicing. Most of these cases besides the kaiser ones (theyre a mess) were for plastic surgeons in beverly hills. Most common causeof death. They screwed up the intubation. Youd be surprised how many doctors are out there practicing that have killed their patients due to avoidable (usually lazy) circumstances. And the average patient has no idea their doctor is basically guilty of multiple manslaughters. Most of the time since the patient is a retiree there are no econonic damages.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: allsee4eye

Silly idea.

If someone is injured in an operation and can only sue for let's say $250,000. They could need a lot more $$ to get right. Or they could be f'd for life.

Want to guess who pays when someone can't work? Want to guess who pays medical when someone can't work (and get company medical coverage) and you want to guess who pays for food-housing? Tax payers.

The swamp continues to GROW!!!

The $250,00 cap is only for "noneconomic damages, such as emotional suffering". If someone is permanently unable to work or something, they could still claim whatever the economic loss is.

a reply to: seasonal

If someone is injured in an operation and can only sue for let's say $250,000. They could need a lot more $$ to get right. Or they could be f'd for life.

Some lady's Twitter post went viral when she posted the bills for her child's surgery and hospital cost at $250.00! In comparison, that seems a bit low.

And yeah, 3 years isn't enough time for a lot of drug and medical issues.

a reply to: VegHead

Perhaps, but that should not matter. If the Dr makes a mistake, the tax payer should not be subsidizing the medical Doctor.
I have always found the conservinuts idea that tort reform being a good idea to stink. Must be Limbaugh mind control? This is a taxpayer subsidizing a very very very profitable business.

a reply to: windword

In Michigan it is 2 years.

originally posted by: seasonal
a reply to: allsee4eye

Silly idea.

If someone is injured in an operation and can only sue for let's say $250,000. They could need a lot more $$ to get right. Or they could be f'd for life.

Want to guess who pays when someone can't work? Want to guess who pays medical when someone can't work (and get company medical coverage) and you want to guess who pays for food-housing? Tax payers.

The swamp continues to GROW!!!

This is for "emotional suffering". People are suing for "emotional suffering" when they see a bodybag being wheeled out on a trolley past their hotel room door. This is taking the piss of those who have been caused real psychological problems like waking up on an operating theater bed and feeling every scalpel incision by the surgeon and being unable to move.