New Hampshire is pioneering an "early offer" alternative for medical malpractice litigation after the state legislature overrode a veto last week, according to a Concord Monitor report.
Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases will now have an option to avoid trial by accepting a settlement offer from the medical provider. If the plaintiff rejects the offer, he/she can still go to trial but must pay the provider's attorney fees — even if the plaintiff wins — if the verdict is less than 125 percent of what the provider offered.
Gov. John Lynch vetoed the legislation June 20, largely over discord with the 125 percent threshold. He said he was not opposed to the "early offer" concept but was concerned that a plaintiff could get a verdict just a few thousand dollars short of the settlement offer and still have to pay the provider's attorney fees.
The bill cleared the House and Senate "easily," according to the report.
New Hampshire Governor Vetoes "Early Offer" Malpractice Reform Bill
Hospitals Referring Patients to Malpractice Attorneys: Conflict of Interest?
Plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases will now have an option to avoid trial by accepting a settlement offer from the medical provider. If the plaintiff rejects the offer, he/she can still go to trial but must pay the provider's attorney fees — even if the plaintiff wins — if the verdict is less than 125 percent of what the provider offered.
Gov. John Lynch vetoed the legislation June 20, largely over discord with the 125 percent threshold. He said he was not opposed to the "early offer" concept but was concerned that a plaintiff could get a verdict just a few thousand dollars short of the settlement offer and still have to pay the provider's attorney fees.
The bill cleared the House and Senate "easily," according to the report.
More Articles on Malpractice Reform:
Study Links EMRs to Lower Risk of Malpractice ClaimsNew Hampshire Governor Vetoes "Early Offer" Malpractice Reform Bill
Hospitals Referring Patients to Malpractice Attorneys: Conflict of Interest?