Pease Park
Proposition 12 Specifics
RECEIVED Mon., Sept. 8, 2003
In response to Dr. Trent Turner’s letter ["Postmarks," Sept. 5], here are three specific things that are wrong with Proposition 12.
First, most proposition supporters emphasize that economic damages are unlimited, and only damages for "pain and suffering" are affected. But in many malpractice cases, "pain and suffering" are both very real elements of damages, and very substantial. Moreover, the categories of damages that will be capped is not limited to pain and suffering; it includes "mental anguish and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of companionship and society, disfigurement, or physical impairment." These damages could also be substantial in a malpractice case. If I have to choose between an insurer’s profit and a complete recovery for a patient who had the wrong leg removed, I will choose the victim of negligence, 10 times out of 10.
Second, the caps’ predicted effect on premiums is dubious. Texas’ recent experience with homeowners’ insurance carriers should guide us here. Medical malpractice rates did not go down in California when med-mal caps went into effect in the Seventies; it took insurance reform to do that in the Eighties, and it will take insurance reform to do it here.
Third, and most important, the amendment is not limited to malpractice. The words "and other actions" would allow the legislature to cap all claims, not just medical malpractice. I challenge any physician to explain why the medical malpractice crisis cannot be solved unless we also cap damages against drunk drivers, manufacturers of defective products, and criminal trespassers.
Dr. Turner was right to ask whether there was anything specifically wrong with the bill other than that it was the "dumbest proposition ever." But it is the "dumbest proposition ever." And one of the most malicious.
First, most proposition supporters emphasize that economic damages are unlimited, and only damages for "pain and suffering" are affected. But in many malpractice cases, "pain and suffering" are both very real elements of damages, and very substantial. Moreover, the categories of damages that will be capped is not limited to pain and suffering; it includes "mental anguish and suffering, loss of consortium, loss of companionship and society, disfigurement, or physical impairment." These damages could also be substantial in a malpractice case. If I have to choose between an insurer’s profit and a complete recovery for a patient who had the wrong leg removed, I will choose the victim of negligence, 10 times out of 10.
Second, the caps’ predicted effect on premiums is dubious. Texas’ recent experience with homeowners’ insurance carriers should guide us here. Medical malpractice rates did not go down in California when med-mal caps went into effect in the Seventies; it took insurance reform to do that in the Eighties, and it will take insurance reform to do it here.
Third, and most important, the amendment is not limited to malpractice. The words "and other actions" would allow the legislature to cap all claims, not just medical malpractice. I challenge any physician to explain why the medical malpractice crisis cannot be solved unless we also cap damages against drunk drivers, manufacturers of defective products, and criminal trespassers.
Dr. Turner was right to ask whether there was anything specifically wrong with the bill other than that it was the "dumbest proposition ever." But it is the "dumbest proposition ever." And one of the most malicious.
Michael Simpson
