 |
|
|
|
Finally, progress on tort reform Commercial Appeal Lobbyists aren't crazy about it, but a reasonable if temporary resolution to the medical malpractice tort reform controversy may be imminent in Tennessee. Legislation that seeks to curb frivolous lawsuits without infringing on the rights of the injured is scheduled for a floor vote in the Senate Monday. Tuesday, it's scheduled to be taken up by a House subcommittee. We believe the approach, sponsored in the Senate by Collierville Republican Mark Norris, merits support on both sides of this contentious issue. "Organized medicine," as House Judiciary chairman Rob Briley, D-Nashville, calls the primary proponents of tort reform, would not get the $250,000 cap on "non-economic" malpractice awards that has been at the center of its legislative wish list. But it would get a set of hurdles that plaintiffs' lawyers must cross to pursue lawsuits against medical practitioners. For a suit to go forward, the attorneys would have to: Notify health care providers who will be defendants in the suit at least 60 days before filing, allowing the parties to consult with each other in the meantime. Produce a "certificate of good faith" within 90 days after the claim is filed that states that they have consulted with medical experts who have provided a written statement that they believe there is a good-faith basis to the claim. Abide by provisions that will make it easier for parties in a case, including all defendants, to get quicker access to plaintiffs' medical records. Support on both sides is tepid, so this surely isn't the last we've heard about tort reform in Tennessee, but it is a sound solution, at least for the short term. The basic idea is to weed out cases that don't have merit, which will allow for more vigorous prosecution of legitimate claims and drain the clogged court system. Attorneys who don't observe the rules could wind up in trouble with the Board of Professional Responsibility -- always an unhelpful career move. Another thing we like about this legislation is that it was written by lawmakers who understand how far they can go in the direction of tort reform right now -- not lobbyists. The compromise was hatched out largely behind the scenes, without the help of people with an all-or-nothing approach. That didn't sit well with advocates for caps on noneconomic damage awards. But, as Norris noted as the process was under way: "I think ... there was a misunderstanding about who has legislative responsibility and who has lobbying responsibility." It always helps to make that distinction clear. |
