Democrats attack Nevada medical association malpractice bill

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) -- A plan to scrap Nevada's new medical malpractice insurance reforms was criticized Tuesday by Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley.

Nevada State Medical Association lobbyist Larry Matheis told the Assembly Judiciary Committee SB97 would provide greater stability to the malpractice insurance market by capping pain-and-suffering lawsuit awards.

The measure imposes a hard cap of $350,000 on non-economic damages in lawsuits stemming from doctor error, shortens the statute of limitations for lawsuits to one year and puts limits on the amount trial attorneys can charge their clients.

Matheis said caps have survived numerous judicial challenges and have worked to keep malpractice insurance rates down in other states.

But Buckley, D-Las Vegas, said she didn't believe Matheis.

"I think that's disingenuous," Buckley said. "Caps have been held unconstitutional in many jurisdictions. I think that's why ... we tried to make that constitutional."

Last fall, the Legislature convened in a special session to deal with medical malpractice insurance reform, which resulted in a law that caps damage awards with some exceptions.

Buckley said she expects the Assembly to gut SB97, amend it into legislation similar to the new law, and send it back to the Senate.

The majority leader's prediction mirrored comments by Sen. Terry Care, D-Las Vegas, who said before SB97 passed the Senate that in the Assembly it would face "the legislative equivalent of Omaha Beach. It will go two feet, and it will be decimated."

The measure wasn't killed Tuesday, but the Judiciary Committee heard more testimony against the bill than for it.

SB97 is the exact language of an initiative petition sponsored by doctors that will go before the voters in 2004.

Bill Bradley, a lobbyist for the Nevada Trial Lawyers Association, said the bill would severely limit the rights of medical malpractice victims to seek restitution in courts because of the hard cap on damages.

"SB97 is so unfair to victims and, without exemptions ... poses significant constitutional problems for any court to overcome," Bradley said.

Bradley also said the measure would allow the payment of medical malpractice awards over time, which doesn't help people who suddenly need another surgery but must wait months before they get their next check.

While SB97 is in line for major revisions, the Assembly has already approved Buckley's AB320, which would block the state insurance commissioner from approving malpractice insurance rate increases if insurers are trying to make up for investment losses or poor underwriting decisions.

The bill also mandates that any insurer with at least 40 percent of the market share would have to provide a four-month notification to the state before withdrawing.

That provision is intended to prevent instances like the one in 2001, where St. Paul Companies stopped providing medical malpractice insurance while holding 60 percent of the market share.

Bradley said St. Paul's poor business practices and subsequent withdrawal from the Nevada market was a leading factor in the current high prices doctors must pay for medical malpractice insurance.

AB320 passed the Assembly, and is now in Senate Judiciary. State Insurance Commissioner Alice Molasky-Arman has termed it unnecessary.