The Missouri Supreme Court has struck down a law placing a $350,000 cap on malpractice awards, saying it violates patients' rights to jury trials, according to a St. Louis Post-Dispatch report.
The Supreme Court case stemmed from a suit filed by Deborah Watts. Her son was born with brain injuries at Cox South Hospital in Springfield, Mo., in 2006 after a delayed emergency C-section. Last year, a jury awarded Ms. Watts nearly $5 million for the malpractice, which was then reduced under the cap law.
The court ruled the cap "infringes on the jury's constitutionally protected purpose of determining the amount of damages sustained by an injured party" in cases involving medical malpractice, according to the report.
The 2005 cap law was championed by Republicans as a cornerstone in tort reform and a way to control growing medical malpractice insurance rates. It limited the monetary awards juries could award to malpractice victims for "pain and suffering," as advocates said such awards were subjective, predictable and prone to bias.
Analysis and experts have shown the law did little to reduce healthcare costs, according to the report. Instead, the most noticeable change under the law was the decrease in lawsuits filed. There was an annual of 847 suits before the law and 643 afterward.
Study Links EMRs to Lower Risk of Malpractice Claims
New Hampshire Governor Vetoes "Early Offer" Malpractice Reform Bill
The Supreme Court case stemmed from a suit filed by Deborah Watts. Her son was born with brain injuries at Cox South Hospital in Springfield, Mo., in 2006 after a delayed emergency C-section. Last year, a jury awarded Ms. Watts nearly $5 million for the malpractice, which was then reduced under the cap law.
The court ruled the cap "infringes on the jury's constitutionally protected purpose of determining the amount of damages sustained by an injured party" in cases involving medical malpractice, according to the report.
The 2005 cap law was championed by Republicans as a cornerstone in tort reform and a way to control growing medical malpractice insurance rates. It limited the monetary awards juries could award to malpractice victims for "pain and suffering," as advocates said such awards were subjective, predictable and prone to bias.
Analysis and experts have shown the law did little to reduce healthcare costs, according to the report. Instead, the most noticeable change under the law was the decrease in lawsuits filed. There was an annual of 847 suits before the law and 643 afterward.
More Articles on Malpractice Reform:
New Hampshire First State to Enact "Early Offer" Malpractice ReformStudy Links EMRs to Lower Risk of Malpractice Claims
New Hampshire Governor Vetoes "Early Offer" Malpractice Reform Bill