The Injustice of Artificial Caps in Jury Verdicts

The Des Moines Register ran a great editorial  on May 18, 2013 that looked at jury verdict caps in light of the Henry’s Turkey Service case. In the editorial, the Register noted that the Congressionally mandated statutory caps in federal EEOC cases reduced the compensatory and punitive damages awarded to each plaintiff in the case from $7.5 million to $50,000. Given the evidence presented at the trial, this reduction was unjust. The Register makes a great point that these verdict caps undercut the inherent wisdom of juries and undermines the crucial deterrent effect that punitive damages create.  If the Iowa state legislature again wants to consider verdict caps in medical malpractice cases they need only look to the Henry’s Turkey Service case to see the injustice created by this “one size fits all” approach to our civil justice system.

Des Moines Register Editorial: “Iowa doesn’t have a malpractice crisis”

This editorial from the Des Moines Register last week was spot on and clearly and concisely rebutted the arguments that Iowa, in medical malpractice cases, should impose caps on non-economic damages and should require a medical expert to screen cases before they can move forward in court. Perhaps most convincing was the Register’s citation of a 2010 study where the University of Iowa interviewed 220 physicians who had left the state of Iowa. Only one physician said that professional liability was an issue in deciding to relocate, as many physicians indicated that they left Iowa because they wanted to earn more money.

Des Moines Register Article: “Claims about medical malpractice lawsuits rejected: Liability researcher says legal, insurance costs don’t explain Iowa’s difficulty in recruiting doctors.”

Here’s a link to an informative article from the Des Moines Register that makes many of the points I made in my previous blog post. The article, written by Tony Leys, discusses Iowa’s recent proposed medical malpractice reforms with Mike Matray, editor of the trade journal Medical Liability Monitor. Matray notes that attempts to argue that Iowa’s medical malpractice climate is the reason for Iowa’s difficulty in recruiting physicians “doesn’t stack up with the reality of the situation” and goes on to explain that malpractice insurance premiums in Iowa are some of the lowest in the country.

At Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers we encourage readers of this blog to contact their state legislators and  voice their opposition to House Study Bill 36 and Senate Study Bill 1054, which would impose caps on non-economic damages and require a “certificate of merit” system in medical malpractices cases in Iowa.

Things You Need to Know about Iowa’s Proposed Medical Malpractice Reforms

Iowa was in the news recently with proposals that it adopt a “certificate of merit” system and that it cap non-economic damages in medical malpractice cases. Under a “certificate of merit” system, a medical expert would have to review a potential medical malpractice case to determine whether the plaintiff’s injuries were caused by the negligent care of a healthcare provider.  The  verdict cap would limit non-economic damages, which are often crucial to ensuring plaintiffs get a just recovery.  

The stated purpose of these proposed reforms is to help Iowa attract additional physicians. Under this logic, “frivolous lawsuits are harming our ability to recruit and retain doctors.” 

This is simply incorrect. To begin with, much of Iowa’s physician shortage is really a byproduct of the fact that Iowa is a rural state with few major population centers. Efforts to make it more difficult to bring meritorious medical malpractice cases to trial will not change the reality that it’s hard to encourage physicians to practice in rural areas far away from major population centers. 

These proposals also fail to recognize that Iowa is already a challenging environment for plaintiffs who bring medical malpractice litigation. In Iowa, the statutory 180 day expert witness disclosure rule, along with the reality of how costly it is for a plaintiff to successfully litigate a medical malpractice case, means most plaintiff’s attorneys usually have a case reviewed by an expert witness prior to filing. This allows plaintiff’s attorneys to avoid filing cases that are unlikely to result in a satisfactory recovery for the plaintiff. As such, common practice already results in an informal “certificate of merit” approach anyway. 

In fact, this environment not only discourages the filing of “frivolous” cases, but also many meritorious claims where the costs of litigation discourage filing claims. The end result of these circumstances can be seen in the significant decline in the number of medical malpractice cases filed in Iowa in the past decade, where 335 cases were filed in 2002 and only 187 in 2011.  

These proposals also don’t take into account that such reforms simply don’t achieve their states goals. As Brad Lint, executive director of the Iowa Association for Justice noted, the “certificate of merit proposal would drive up litigation costs for plaintiffs and defendants alike, and make it much more difficult for seriously injured patients to pursue their claims in court.” Lint went on to note that in states that have enacted verdict caps, “Health insurance premiums didn’t go down, doctors didn’t save money on their liability insurance, but insurance company profits shot through the roof.”  

Given these factors, at Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers we feel that these proposals should be a non-starter with the state legislature. We also concur with the Quad City Times that such proposals “would be legislative overreach.Iowa has not experienced runaway medical malpractice judgments. We’re much more comfortable with laws that leave judicial matters to jurors and judges who hear facts unique to each case, rather than having legislators make up an arbitrary cap.” 

In the coming weeks and months this blog will provide additional posts that hopefully will add some clarity and context to the debate about the prior-mentioned reforms.

The Statute of Limitations in Iowa Medical Malpractice Cases

When does my lawsuit need to be filed?

One of the first things we do for a potential medical malpractice client at Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers is  attempt to determine our potential client's Statute of Limitations.  In laymen’s terms, this is the amount of time a plaintiff has in a personal injury case, such as a medical practice case, to file a lawsuit. This determination is crucial. If you don’t file the lawsuit in time Iowa law bars you from filing it later.  

Determining the Statute of Limitations date can sometimes be a complicated and fact-intensive determination. As with many legal issues, it is best to seek the advice of an experienced attorney as soon as possible on Statute of Limitations questions as numerous considerations come into play. 

                A. THE MEDICAL MALPRACTICE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS IN IOWA:  GENERAL RULE

In Iowa, medical malpractice cases must be filed “within two years after the date on which the claimant knew, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have known, or received notice in writing of the existence of the injury or death for which damages are sought.”   With many cases it is easy to determine the Statute of Limitations under this rule as the healthcare provider’s negligent act is readily apparent and noticeable.  Acts such as operating on the wrong limb or administering the wrong medication are often immediately noticeable. In cases such as these, it is relatively simple to find a date two years from these readily apparent events. 

The Statute of Limitations gets tricky in cases where the malpractice is not immediately apparent.  For instance, a radiologist may have negligently interpreted an x-ray that results in the patient not receiving an operation they need.  This mistake may not be discovered for months until the patient becomes more symptomatic and sees another physician who discovers and points out the misread x- ray in a subsequent office visit.  In “discovery rule” cases such as this hypothetical, the Statute of Limitations does not start until the patient knew, or should have known through reasonable diligence both the physical/mental harm and its cause in fact. This rule was established in part though the litigation of Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers in the Rathje v. Mercy Hospital case, which liberalized the discovery rule in Iowa. 

                B. STATUTE OF REPOSE: WHEN NEGLIGENCE CONTINUES TO GO UNDISCOVERED 

Occasionally it will take many years for a patient, acting reasonably, to discover medical malpractice negligence.  In these cases, Iowa law sets a six year limit from the date of the negligent act or omission. So in the case of our hypothetical patient whose radiologist negligently interpreted an x ray, if this is not discovered within six years the patient cannot bring a claim. The only exception on this six year limit is when a foreign object is unintentionally left in the body, which eventually causes injury or death.

C. MINORS UNDER EIGHT:  A DIFFERENT RULE

If malpractice is committed against a minor who is under 8 when the act or omission occurs the minor has two years or until their 10^th birthday, whichever is later in which to file suit.  This more liberal rule takes into account the fact that it sometimes takes years to get an informed understanding of the extent of a minor’s damages.  However, if the minors parents want to become plaintiffs as well they only have two years to file suit to protect their claims.  

                D. OTHER PERSONAL INJURY CASES

At Hayes Lorenzen Lawyers, we don’t just represent medical malpractice clients, but also represent clients in other personal injury cases such as industrial accidents, motor vehicle accidents, fires and explosions, etc. In these cases the statute of limitations is two years from the date of the accident/injury.