In the recent letter “Malpractice award limits hurt victims” (Oct. 12), Patrick Salvi, president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association, makes several deceptive assertions.
The statement that medical malpractice premiums paid by doctors represent only 1 percent (approximately $8 billion) of the health care budget, implies that the cost of malpractice litigation is a negligible factor driving health care costs. This is absolutely false. The true cost is great, but difficult to precisely determine because physicians, practicing in a hostile medico-legal environment, are forced to practice defensive medicine.
Salvi stated opposition to malpractice award limits because “they take away from the recovery of the most severely injured victims.” In Clinton’s proposal, there is no cap on physical nor economic damages, only a $250,000 limit on non-economic damages.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys should be quite happy with the proposal. The other major component of malpractice reform is to limit contingency fees to 33 1/3 percent. This is no reform at all. Other actions under consideration will facilitate litigation. Among these are the concept of organizational/enterprise liability and an exemption to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
Our medical malpractice system is “badly broken.” There is no greater incentive for frivolous or marginally meritorious suits than the contingency fee system coupled with sympathetic juries and limitless damage awards. It can force tremendous legal expense on innocent defendants, spur groundless out of court settlements to avoid the expense and volatility of a jury trial, and impose significant cost on all health care customers. It is time the multimillionaires this system created stop complaining.
