Caps on Healthcare Liability

Caps Discriminate Against Seniors, Women and Children

A $250,000 cap on non-economic damages ? the only compensation a jury can provide for an injury itself as opposed to reimbursement for the injured person?s out-of-pocket expenses ? is unfair to the most severely injured victims of medical malpractice. It would discriminate against women, children and seniors, while doing nothing to lower health care costs or doctors? premiums.

• Caps in healthcare liability cases are unfair to the most severely injured, but protects the insurance and pharmaceutical industries.

Supporters of so-called ?tort reform? say they just want to limit frivolous lawsuits, but their proposed cap on non-economic damages would apply to all victims, regardless of how severe the injury or how bad the mistake by the doctor, hospital or drug maker. In practice, that means only the most meritorious lawsuits would be affected, not frivolous ones. That?s because it?s only in the most egregious cases of malpractice injuries that a jury votes to provide compensation greater than the proposed cap. Meanwhile, insurance companies, negligent doctors and the makers of drugs like Vioxx are protected.

• Children, some women, and seniors have no economic losses.

When a child, stay-at-home mom, or retired person is injured or killed by medical malpractice, there are no lost wages to be reimbursed by economic damages. Other than reimbursement expenses for out-of-pocket medical costs, the only form of compensation is ?non-economic damages,? which would be limited to $250,000. Instead of a big-government, one-size-fits-all limit, we should let juries decide what appropriate compensation is for a paralyzed child who?ll never play sports, a disfigured teenager who?ll never go to a prom, a mother who loses her child forever, or the family of a stay-at-home mom or retired person who?s killed by medical negligence. Are these ?non-economic? losses ? the only compensation for permanent, life-altering injuries ? less valuable than the economic loss of a working adult?s wages?

• Working women have lower economic losses than men.

Women typically earn less than men, even for the same job. With the ?non-economic damages,? limited to $250,000, the rest of their reimbursement comes from lost wages, or economic loss. So, for the same injury, working women would receive less compensation under this bill.

• Statistically, women and seniors are exposed to more medical negligence and are more likely to be injured or killed bad drugs and medical devices.

Historically, women are more often exposed to dangerous medical products and medical negligence than men. Some medical malpractice claims, for instance, are unique to women?like obstetrical malpractice and sexual assault by health care providers. In addition, women suffer harm from gender-specific products such as breast implants and birth control devices like IUDs. Seniors rely on health care, especially prescription drugs and medical devices much more than the population at large. This bill, which shields bad nursing homes, hospitals, and doctors, and prohibits punishment for the manufacturers of faulty medical devices and dangerous drugs, will disproportionately hurt seniors.

Don’t Let Them Put Profits Over People!