Med Mal News

After getting little cooperation from the California legislature on the issue, Bob Pack and Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based advocate for victims' rights, have filed a ballot initiative that would raise California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. The cap, in place since the passage of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) in 1975, has not been adjusted for inflation in nearly 40 years. The referendum would tie the cap to the rate of inflation (1975″s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages would equate to about $1.1 million today). Pack lost his two young children in 2003 when they were struck by a car driven by a driver under the influence of prescription drugs. He wanted to sue the doctor who prescribed those drugs to the driver, but was effectively prevented from doing so because suits on behalf of the not-yet-employed children would net primarily noneconomic damages.

Opponents of change are sticking to their guns. Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups that back MICRA, said, “We believe the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages should remain,” because “[i]t strikes the right balance between allowing legitimate claims to move forward, while providing disincentives for lawyers to file meritless lawsuits.” Interestingly, one of the proponents for a change to MICRA is former California Assemblyman Barry Keene, an original sponsor of the law. He told the Los Angeles Times that he originally sought to alter the bill to index the cap to inflation, but that the trial lawyers' lobby, which opposed MICRA, did not want that change made; without it, they expected the bill would be so odious that it would not pass. The trial lawyers were unpleasantly surprised. Hiltzik, Michael, “It's Time to Fix California's Outdated Medical Malpractice Law,” Los Angeles Times, 7/6/13.

'

'

Firing Abusive Disabled-Patient Caregivers: Expos' Finds No Improvement

In 2011, The New York Times published an article exposing a troubling statistic: Less than a quarter of State workers employed by one agency to care for people with developmental disabilities were fired after they were found to have abused a charge or exhibited other egregious misconduct, even though their supervisors recommended discharge. Most remained in the employ of the State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities largely because of strong employee unions and the requirement that potential discharge cases be submitted to arbitration. On Aug. 9, the Times published results of a follow-up inquiry of the same agency, as well as of the State Office of Mental Health. Using employee disciplinary records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, the Times once again found that just 23% of the 227 employees found guilty of patient abuse at the State Office for People With Developmental Disabilities were actually discharged from their positions; at the State Office of Mental Health, that number was 27%. Hakim, “State Lagging on Dismissals in Abuse Cases,” The New York Times, 8/9/13.

Advocate Files Ballot Initiative to Raise MICRA's Damage Cap

After getting little cooperation from the California legislature on the issue, Bob Pack and Consumer Watchdog, a Santa Monica-based advocate for victims' rights, have filed a ballot initiative that would raise California's $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases. The cap, in place since the passage of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) in 1975, has not been adjusted for inflation in nearly 40 years. The referendum would tie the cap to the rate of inflation (1975″s $250,000 limit on noneconomic damages would equate to about $1.1 million today). Pack lost his two young children in 2003 when they were struck by a car driven by a driver under the influence of prescription drugs. He wanted to sue the doctor who prescribed those drugs to the driver, but was effectively prevented from doing so because suits on behalf of the not-yet-employed children would net primarily noneconomic damages.

Opponents of change are sticking to their guns. Kathy Fairbanks, a spokeswoman for a coalition of groups that back MICRA, said, “We believe the $250,000 limit on non-economic damages should remain,” because “[i]t strikes the right balance between allowing legitimate claims to move forward, while providing disincentives for lawyers to file meritless lawsuits.” Interestingly, one of the proponents for a change to MICRA is former California Assemblyman Barry Keene, an original sponsor of the law. He told the Los Angeles Times that he originally sought to alter the bill to index the cap to inflation, but that the trial lawyers' lobby, which opposed MICRA, did not want that change made; without it, they expected the bill would be so odious that it would not pass. The trial lawyers were unpleasantly surprised. Hiltzik, Michael, “It's Time to Fix California's Outdated Medical Malpractice Law,” Los Angeles Times, 7/6/13.

'

'