State News

In the text of the resolution, the New Jersey State Bar Association points out that the agency that manages New Jersey's judicial system, the Administrative Office of the Courts, has recently published a study that found that the number of malpractice cases filed in the state had dropped 10% over those filed in the previous year. Of the 205 cases that went to trial during the period studied, plaintiffs won only 54, or roughly one quarter of the cases tried. In addition, of those 54 cases won by plaintiffs, the average combined economic and non-economic award was $300,000, with only 18 verdicts coming in that were worth more than $1,000,000.

The Bar Association's resolution raised the question of whether rising insurance premiums were more a function of bad business decisions on the part of insurers, rather than rampant plaintiff and attorney greed. Some studies conducted within the state, however, have pointed toward malpractice payouts as the villain in the issue of rising premiums, not to a decline in investment income.

The New Jersey Bar Association sums up its opposition to the New Jersey Senate's version of the bill by stating in its resolution that 'the NJSBA believes that the legislation eliminates litigant rights [such as placing a 2-year statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims] which are a longstanding part of New Jersey's civil justice system, that there is no rational basis for taxing the thousands of lawyers in New Jersey who do not practice in the medical malpractice area to pay for harm caused by doctors, and that there is no conclusive evidence that the adoption of such caps will provide doctors with relief from high medical malpractice insurance premiums.'

The resolution asks that the state's governor and legislature appoint a study commission to consider solutions for the problem of rising medical malpractice insurance premiums that will allow physicians to continue seeing patients while giving injured parties an adequate means to redress their grievances; but not, as the state's Senate has proposed, by assessing a fee against attorneys. The state's Assembly, which passed a much different version of the bill in December 2002, has received the Senate's altered bill and will now have the opportunity to pass the legislation or change it again.

Texas Tort Reform Causes Panic

There was a run on the courthouses of Texas during the last week of May as attorneys rushed to file their suits before tort reform measures went into effect there. In Dallas, 450 suits were filed on May 28 and 29. Typically, only 60 lawsuits are filed there each day. In other Texas jurisdictions, the number of suits filed in the last week of May increased approximately fourfold over the norm.

The Texas tort reform law, House Bill 4, calls for changes in several areas, including medical malpractice suits and personal injury suits involving automobiles. Several provisions of the bill were to have taken effect May 30, but the effective date was delayed by at least a month because the House-Senate conference committee did not come to a compromise until a meeting that took place May 31. Now, most portions of the bill will go into effect July 1, but the most talked-about provision ' the one that caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases ' will not go into effect until Sept. 1, 2003. The med-mal caps include a $250,000 cap on damages recoverable from all the doctors named in a suit as defendants, a $250,000 limit on recovery from a single defendant hospital, and an additional $250,000 if more than one hospital is held responsible for the plaintiff's injury. The bill was sent to the governor June 4.

State News was written by Editor-in-Chief Janice G. Inman, Esq.

The Texas tort reform law, House Bill 4, calls for changes in several areas, including medical malpractice suits and personal injury suits involving automobiles. Several provisions of the bill were to have taken effect May 30, but the effective date was delayed by at least a month because the House-Senate conference committee did not come to a compromise until a meeting that took place May 31. Now, most portions of the bill will go into effect July 1, but the most talked-about provision ' the one that caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases ' will not go into effect until Sept. 1, 2003. The med-mal caps include a $250,000 cap on damages recoverable from all the doctors named in a suit as defendants, a $250,000 limit on recovery from a single defendant hospital, and an additional $250,000 if more than one hospital is held responsible for the plaintiff's injury. The bill was sent to the governor June 4.

State News, a new addition to this newsletter, was written by Editor-in-Chief Janice G. Inman, Esq.

New Jersey Bar Protests Tort-Reform Fee on Attorney Licenses

Adding its voice to the rising debate on medical malpractice reform, the New Jersey State Bar Association May 13 adopted a resolution calling for the state legislature to rethink its proposed $50-per-year assessment on attorneys' licenses to help fund a state kitty that would pay up to $700,000 in non-economic damages to victims of medical malpractice. The resolution, drawn up by a group formed in January ' the New Jersey State Bar Association Task Force on Medical Malpractice ' was formulated in response to the New Jersey State Senate's 35-to-2 approval March 20 of a bill that would, among other things, place a $300,000 limit on physician liability for non-economic medical malpractice damages. As part of that legislation, the state would set up a fund ' called the Medical Malpractice Insurance Liability Excess Fund ' to pay up to an additional $700,000 in non-economic damages, should a jury award more than the $300,000 limit. The money to fund this program would come from a $50 assessment on each New Jersey attorney's license to practice, as well as from a $3 fee per employee, collected from the state's employers.

The Bar's resolution was formulated following input from its members who represent doctors, hospitals, the insurance industry and patients. In addition, representatives of the Bar Association met with members of the state legislature, New Jersey's governor Jim McGreevey and members of the U.S. Congress.

In the text of the resolution, the New Jersey State Bar Association points out that the agency that manages New Jersey's judicial system, the Administrative Office of the Courts, has recently published a study that found that the number of malpractice cases filed in the state had dropped 10% over those filed in the previous year. Of the 205 cases that went to trial during the period studied, plaintiffs won only 54, or roughly one quarter of the cases tried. In addition, of those 54 cases won by plaintiffs, the average combined economic and non-economic award was $300,000, with only 18 verdicts coming in that were worth more than $1,000,000.

The Bar Association's resolution raised the question of whether rising insurance premiums were more a function of bad business decisions on the part of insurers, rather than rampant plaintiff and attorney greed. Some studies conducted within the state, however, have pointed toward malpractice payouts as the villain in the issue of rising premiums, not to a decline in investment income.

The New Jersey Bar Association sums up its opposition to the New Jersey Senate's version of the bill by stating in its resolution that 'the NJSBA believes that the legislation eliminates litigant rights [such as placing a 2-year statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims] which are a longstanding part of New Jersey's civil justice system, that there is no rational basis for taxing the thousands of lawyers in New Jersey who do not practice in the medical malpractice area to pay for harm caused by doctors, and that there is no conclusive evidence that the adoption of such caps will provide doctors with relief from high medical malpractice insurance premiums.'

The resolution asks that the state's governor and legislature appoint a study commission to consider solutions for the problem of rising medical malpractice insurance premiums that will allow physicians to continue seeing patients while giving injured parties an adequate means to redress their grievances; but not, as the state's Senate has proposed, by assessing a fee against attorneys. The state's Assembly, which passed a much different version of the bill in December 2002, has received the Senate's altered bill and will now have the opportunity to pass the legislation or change it again.

Texas Tort Reform Causes Panic

There was a run on the courthouses of Texas during the last week of May as attorneys rushed to file their suits before tort reform measures went into effect there. In Dallas, 450 suits were filed on May 28 and 29. Typically, only 60 lawsuits are filed there each day. In other Texas jurisdictions, the number of suits filed in the last week of May increased approximately fourfold over the norm.

The Texas tort reform law, House Bill 4, calls for changes in several areas, including medical malpractice suits and personal injury suits involving automobiles. Several provisions of the bill were to have taken effect May 30, but the effective date was delayed by at least a month because the House-Senate conference committee did not come to a compromise until a meeting that took place May 31. Now, most portions of the bill will go into effect July 1, but the most talked-about provision ' the one that caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases ' will not go into effect until Sept. 1, 2003. The med-mal caps include a $250,000 cap on damages recoverable from all the doctors named in a suit as defendants, a $250,000 limit on recovery from a single defendant hospital, and an additional $250,000 if more than one hospital is held responsible for the plaintiff's injury. The bill was sent to the governor June 4.

State News was written by Editor-in-Chief Janice G. Inman, Esq.

The Texas tort reform law, House Bill 4, calls for changes in several areas, including medical malpractice suits and personal injury suits involving automobiles. Several provisions of the bill were to have taken effect May 30, but the effective date was delayed by at least a month because the House-Senate conference committee did not come to a compromise until a meeting that took place May 31. Now, most portions of the bill will go into effect July 1, but the most talked-about provision ' the one that caps non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases ' will not go into effect until Sept. 1, 2003. The med-mal caps include a $250,000 cap on damages recoverable from all the doctors named in a suit as defendants, a $250,000 limit on recovery from a single defendant hospital, and an additional $250,000 if more than one hospital is held responsible for the plaintiff's injury. The bill was sent to the governor June 4.

State News, a new addition to this newsletter, was written by Editor-in-Chief Janice G. Inman, Esq.