Hmmmm – TX passes more substantive reforms earlier than OK and OK is already experiencing a huge drop in claims?
It may be worth considering that Gov. Henry ran on a campaign platform that included a promise to reform medical malpractice.
Scott Meacham representated Gov. Henry in negotiations with the OTLA(Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association President) and the OMSA (Oklahoma State Medical Association) while freezing out other interested participants (like the State Chamber, etc).
Now, Meacham and Laizure (OTLA President) appear to be all giddy about this sudden drop in medical malpractice claims occuring only a year after reforms that were extremely limited in scope.
Smells awfully fishy to me.
On the other hand, if the measure is working as well as this article says, OK should enact more substantive tort reform that applies across the board to other areas instead of just limiting such effective reforms to medical malpractice.
All should carefully note that the reform in Oklahoma is simply that of requiring review of the claim by a qualified expert before the suit is allowed to be filed. All states should have some form of that law because medical negligence is not as easy to recognize as a rear-end accident and often is confused with a bad result or poor bedside manner. That is why the medical profession gets by with a great deal of malpractice – the patient does not even know what happened was the result of negligence.
Note also that just a few years ago in Nevada the doctors and malpractice insurers lobbied and got not only caps in med mal cases but got the review panel process eliminated! It worked too well. That is, malpractice was found too often for the liking of the doctors and their insurers.
Anyway, review is the proper approach because it screens claims before suit is ever filed and the expense thereof to the industry every incurred. Putting limits in place that apply to all claims, valid or not, throws out the baby with the bath water and is ignorant at best.
I definately understand the point about the need for professional review in medical malpractice claims. However, it would be very important to carefully consider how the expert(s) is chosen, what their qualifications should be, and by whom they are chosen.
As for damage caps, clearly not every claim should have such limitations. Those claims involving serious injury or death, injuries that can be objectively observed, or those involving wilfull or wanton behavior of the defendant should provide the victim with fair compensation.
It would seem that damage limitations in medical malpractice claims would rarely be needed since most of the injuries claim would tend to be those of a more serious nature.
In other less severe claims, such as soft-tissue injuries resulting from automobile accidents or slip & fall claims, reform is needed to prevent abuse of the tort system by unscrupulous plaintiffs seeking to make a profit.
For example, studies done in the nineties confirmed that 18 out of every 100 automobile accidents in Philidelphia, PA involved a claim for injury; 46 out of every 100 involved a claim for injury in Oklahoma; and 99 out of every 100 in Los Angeles, CA.
Clearly the frequency or severity of an injury is not related to geographic location. Rather, states that have more liberal tort systems are much more likely to see more claims for injuries.
That is not to say that people do not get injured and should not be compensated. Unfortunately, the system has grown beyond making the victim whole, to one that offers profits and careers.
Tort reform measures that include well worded limits on noneconomic damages will take the profit out of plaintiff.
That is not to say, however, that punitive damage caps should be rushed into law without careful consideration of the wording and application for fear that the “abuse pendulum” could swing back over to the side of the defendant if legislation that is too one-sided.
Unfortunately, most of the discussion is likely to be a mute point. Few voters understand tort concepts and issues well enough to care, much less decide how to best reform the system. That is why the issue continues to be decided by those groups and interests that provide the most in campaign contributions.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Hmmmm – TX passes more substantive reforms earlier than OK and OK is already experiencing a huge drop in claims?
It may be worth considering that Gov. Henry ran on a campaign platform that included a promise to reform medical malpractice.
Scott Meacham representated Gov. Henry in negotiations with the OTLA(Oklahoma Trial Lawyers Association President) and the OMSA (Oklahoma State Medical Association) while freezing out other interested participants (like the State Chamber, etc).
Now, Meacham and Laizure (OTLA President) appear to be all giddy about this sudden drop in medical malpractice claims occuring only a year after reforms that were extremely limited in scope.
Smells awfully fishy to me.
On the other hand, if the measure is working as well as this article says, OK should enact more substantive tort reform that applies across the board to other areas instead of just limiting such effective reforms to medical malpractice.
Could the fact that the primary insuror for med-mal in Oklahoma is broke have anything to do with the decrease in claims?
All should carefully note that the reform in Oklahoma is simply that of requiring review of the claim by a qualified expert before the suit is allowed to be filed. All states should have some form of that law because medical negligence is not as easy to recognize as a rear-end accident and often is confused with a bad result or poor bedside manner. That is why the medical profession gets by with a great deal of malpractice – the patient does not even know what happened was the result of negligence.
Note also that just a few years ago in Nevada the doctors and malpractice insurers lobbied and got not only caps in med mal cases but got the review panel process eliminated! It worked too well. That is, malpractice was found too often for the liking of the doctors and their insurers.
Anyway, review is the proper approach because it screens claims before suit is ever filed and the expense thereof to the industry every incurred. Putting limits in place that apply to all claims, valid or not, throws out the baby with the bath water and is ignorant at best.
Gary M. Hazelton
I definately understand the point about the need for professional review in medical malpractice claims. However, it would be very important to carefully consider how the expert(s) is chosen, what their qualifications should be, and by whom they are chosen.
As for damage caps, clearly not every claim should have such limitations. Those claims involving serious injury or death, injuries that can be objectively observed, or those involving wilfull or wanton behavior of the defendant should provide the victim with fair compensation.
It would seem that damage limitations in medical malpractice claims would rarely be needed since most of the injuries claim would tend to be those of a more serious nature.
In other less severe claims, such as soft-tissue injuries resulting from automobile accidents or slip & fall claims, reform is needed to prevent abuse of the tort system by unscrupulous plaintiffs seeking to make a profit.
For example, studies done in the nineties confirmed that 18 out of every 100 automobile accidents in Philidelphia, PA involved a claim for injury; 46 out of every 100 involved a claim for injury in Oklahoma; and 99 out of every 100 in Los Angeles, CA.
Clearly the frequency or severity of an injury is not related to geographic location. Rather, states that have more liberal tort systems are much more likely to see more claims for injuries.
That is not to say that people do not get injured and should not be compensated. Unfortunately, the system has grown beyond making the victim whole, to one that offers profits and careers.
Tort reform measures that include well worded limits on noneconomic damages will take the profit out of plaintiff.
That is not to say, however, that punitive damage caps should be rushed into law without careful consideration of the wording and application for fear that the “abuse pendulum” could swing back over to the side of the defendant if legislation that is too one-sided.
Unfortunately, most of the discussion is likely to be a mute point. Few voters understand tort concepts and issues well enough to care, much less decide how to best reform the system. That is why the issue continues to be decided by those groups and interests that provide the most in campaign contributions.
RE