2017: Fitzpatrick Voted For Capping Non-Economic Damages In Medical
Malpractices Cases Where The Health Insurance For The Plaintiff Received
Was From A Federal Program Or Was Federally Subsidized. In June 2017,
Fitzpatrick voted for The "Protecting Access to Care Act" that would
have capped noneconomic damages at $250,000 awarded to the plaintiff in
a civil medical malpractice lawsuit According to The Washington Post,
"limit[ed] to $250,000 the non-economic damages that can be awarded
in a medical malpractice lawsuit in which the plaintiff's health care
was paid for in whole or in part via a federal program, subsidy or tax
benefit, and would [have] establish[ed] a statute of limitations for
initiating such lawsuits of either three years following the plaintiff's
injury, or one year after the plaintiff discovers such injury, whichever
occurs first. The bill would [have] also prohibit[ed] a health care
provider that prescribes or dispenses a FDA-approved medical product
from being named as a party in either a product liability lawsuit
involving the product or a class action lawsuit against the
manufacturer, distributor or seller of such product." The House passed
the bill by a vote of 218 to 210. The Senate took no substantive action
on the legislation. [House Vote 337,
6/28/17; Washington Post,
6/28/17;
Congressional Actions, H.R.
1215]
The Measure Capped Damages To Plaintiff's Whose Health Care Was
From A Federal Program Or Was Federally Subsidized. According to
Congressional Quarterly, "Passage of the bill that would limit to
$250,000 the non-economic damages that can be awarded in a medical
malpractice lawsuit in which the plaintiff's health care was paid
for in whole or in part via a federal program, subsidy or tax
benefit." [Congressional Quarterly,
6/28/17]
Democratic Opposition Argued That The Bill Would Have Prevented
Victims From Receiving Proper Compensation For Their Injury And
Could Lead To Further Malpractice. According to The Washington
Examiner, "Democrats said the bill would unfairly limit a patient's
ability to collect appropriate damages from medical malpractice and
would shield negligent doctors from liability. They argued the bill
was intended to give a tax break to health insurance companies.
'Additional tests may frankly be just good medicine,' Rep. Sheila
Jackson Lee, D-Texas, said on the House floor. On Tuesday, 80
organizations sent a letter to House leaders urging them to oppose
the bill. 'Even if [the bill] applied only to doctors and
hospitals, recent studies clearly establish that its provisions
would lead to more deaths and injuries, and increased healthcare
costs due to a 'broad relaxation of care,'' they wrote. 'Add to this
nursing home and pharmaceutical industry liability limitations,
significantly weakening incentives for these industries to act
safely, and untold numbers of additional death, injuries and costs
are inevitable and unacceptable.'" [Washington Examiner,
7/7/17]
The California MICRA Damage Cap Of $250,000 Created In 1975 Has
No Provision That Accounts For Inflation. In a Los Angeles Times
op-ed Nora Freeman Engstrom and Robert L. Rabin wrote, "The
California Legislature first capped this type of damages in medical
malpractice lawsuits in 1975, and roughly half the states have
followed California's lead. This summer, however, nearly 40 years
after California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act first
limited noneconomic damages in malpractice cases to $250,000, trial
lawyers and consumer groups have unveiled a ballot initiative that
would relax the cap considerably. If the measure qualifies for the
ballot and is approved by voters next year, the allowable amount for
noneconomic damage payouts for victims of medical malpractice would
be quadrupled. Relaxing the $250,000 cap, which has never been
adjusted for inflation, is a wise move. As a reform idea,
noneconomic damage caps have never made much sense." [Los Angeles
Times,
8/13/13]