Health Care Providers, Patient Advocates Debate Medical Malpractice Law July 3, 2012 News Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act , MICRA 0 Several legal challenges against California’s medical malpractice law have divided health care providers and patient advocates. Details of the Law The Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) was enacted in 1975 to protect health care providers from increasing malpractice insurance rates and expensive lawsuits. The law limits all damages related to pain and suffering or emotional loss from a loved one’s death to $250,000. Under the law, economic and punitive damages remain unlimited in medical malpractice cases. Support for the Law Proponents of the law say that it makes practicing medicine in California financially feasible for physicians by controlling costs related to malpractice claims and liability insurance. Lisa Maas, executive director of Californians Allied for Patient Protection, said that the law is “a critical component of California’s health care infrastructure, and it makes sure that injured patients receive fair compensation while preserving access to health care services for all Californians.” Alicia Wagnon, legal counsel for the California Medical Association, said that the law is necessary because the state must “preserve and maximize access to (health) care for California,” adding, “The mechanism is by keeping cost in medical malpractice cases down.” Some health care providers say that the law will become more relevant following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the federal health reform law. Kathy Kneer of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California said, “With the Affordable Care Act being upheld, more people will be entering the medical system.” She said that if the state “raise[s] the MICRA caps, that means it will increase our costs.” Opposition to the Law Some patient advocates and trial attorneys argue that basing a medical malpractice award on lost wages is unfair to plaintiffs who either do not earn much money or do not have income because of age. Bruce Brusavich, a past president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, said that scarred and disfigured plaintiffs who are able to return to work also are disadvantaged by the cap on damages. Additional Info on MICRA In September 2011, California’s 5th Appellate District Court upheld the constitutionality of California's landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which caps non-economic damage awards at $250,000. CMA filed a “friend of the court” brief and also participated in oral argument, telling the court that the broader goal of MICRA—to ensure access to care—is just as relevant today as it was in 1975. Click here for additional information about MICRA and the Stinnett v. Tam case. Source: California Healthline, July 3, 2012. Comments are closed.
