The bill to limit medical malpractice suits, as approved by the House Judiciary I committee, passes a rough test for fairness: it leaves both the lawyers and doctors who have been fighting over it less than perfectly satisfied, but without a strong enough argument to rally support against it. That is a reasonable indication it may work.
The bill was revised to take into account some of the lawyers` earlier objections. It now provides that the winner of a malpractice suit may collect up to $250,000 as a lump-sum payment (or 50 percent of the total judgment, if that is greater). It reduces the amount of payments from collateral sources that can be counted as part of the award. And it restricts the role of screening panels created to keep frivolous suits out of court; the panels, which would include doctors and lawyers, may advise on the merits of a suit, but cannot set a monetary value on it–that will be up to the court.
Its chief purpose remains: to curb the flood of malpractice suits by discouraging frivolous claims filed in the hope of getting rich. Under the bill, plaintiffs and lawyers who file suit against the recommendations of a screening panel will risk getting stuck with the legal fees if they lose. The threat of a strong countersuit from a victimized doctor is a further deterrent.
Though it has been obscured by the lobbying effort in Springfield, the point in all this is not to adjust the conflicting interests of doctors and lawyers. It is to balance the just claims of people disabled by poor medical treatment against the public`s claim not to be victimized by needlessly swollen medical costs. The compromise bill serves both sides of the public interest reasonably well. It is perhaps not the best that could have been achieved, but it moves in the right direction.
