The Utah Legislature passed a bill that would help set protections for physicians in medical malpractice lawsuits while still seeking to cover the needs of victims.
After multiple changes were made to HB503, it passed through the final vote in the House on Thursday by a vote of 47-27. The bill, sponsored by Rep. Katy Hall, R-South Ogden, will now go to the governor’s desk for his signature.
The original bill capped damages that could be awarded in medical malpractice cases that didn’t result in death. This provision proved controversial and was eventually taken out.
“I think what we’ve come up with is really good, because we’ve protected those who are legitimately harmed by malpractice. We want them to be taken care of,” Hall said.
Despite the changes, there are still people who believe this bill will limit the amount of money victims can receive.
Hall started working on this bill after she was approached by a constituent who works in a clinic in Davis County who had concerns about frivolous malpractice lawsuits.
“He’s worried about losing physicians because of the cost of medical malpractice, and not only the costs in money, but also the costs in just what it costs to the people who are being sued,” Hall said.
Hall said they worked through this bill to make sure that they were protecting the victims as well as the doctors in medical malpractice cases.
“So if they have a catastrophic, heaven forbid, a catastrophic event that is life altering, they can still sue the malpractice insurance for hospitals or physicians wherever, whoever was involved to get what they need, so that still is protected,” Hall said.
Hall, whose husband is a physician, shared that because of the high cost of liability insurance, the state is losing doctors, especially in small town areas where the number of physicians is more limited. Because of this she wanted to set protections for these doctors so that they could stay in their jobs.
“I’m a nurse, and I understand both sides, I mean, we need our physicians to stay in practice, right?” Hall said. “Because even if someone gets hurt, someone still has to help them along the way too, other physicians. And I believe that most of our physicians are really, really good at their jobs.”
What the bill does
HB503 would require plaintiffs to pay the defendant’s attorney fees if the court finds that their claim doesn’t have merit, in an effort to decrease frivolous lawsuits.
Hall shared that sometimes when a lawsuit is brought up, defense lawyers will say that they’re going to go after the doctor’s home and other assets so doctors get scared and decide to settle. The bill would prevent this from happening by no longer allowing lawyers to go after the physician’s assets.
It would create a framework for determining economic damages based on payments made for medical expenses. The bill would require the Division of Professional Licensing to put together yearly reports to summarize malpractice claims and outcomes around Utah.
Under HB503, physicians would be required to hold an insurance policy of at least $1 million.
Controversy over medical malpractice bill
The bill originally had a $1 million cap for malpractice cases that did not result in death, but that portion of the bill was removed after victims testified about the high cost of medical care that can be incurred by those who live after a botched medical procedure.
Eric Nielson, a medical malpractice lawyer who has been practicing in Utah for 40 years, is opposed to the bill and the idea of capping how much money people can receive in damages after being injured during a medical procedure.
“Because it’s blatantly unconstitutional and it’s anti-American,” he said.
Though the bill sponsor removed the specific language about a cap, Nielson said the bill would still limit how much plaintiffs can receive in their cases.
“They just don’t want to call it a cap. It has the net effect of creating a cap. And just think about how unfair this is,” Nielson said.
Nielson sees a cap resulting from those suing not being able to go after a doctor’s assets and because of the required $1 million insurance policies.
Nielson said he believes the bill is meant to benefit insurance companies.
Copyright © 2024 Protects Patients Now. All Rights Reserved.