In order to thwart a fear that was perceived as a "crisis" and based on media campaigns aimed at shifting focus from real problems, Nevada citizens passed a voting initiative to limit non-economic losses in medical malpractice. See NRS 41A.035. According to the US and Nevada Constitution, this ceiling is unconventional. The court should declare the non-economic damage ceiling unconstitutional.
A. Question
NRS 41A.035 and related provisions, collectively referred to as "infringement reforms", are designed to address the skyrocketing rate of medical malpractice insurance premiums and consider such rates to either cause doctors to lose their practice, limit their practices, or leave Nevada completely. The urgency and the need to take action is that the problem is to some extent immediate and has a causal relationship with the recent unreasonable high jury verdict, which caused losses to the insurance company, which proves Unreasonable interest rate hikes for medical malpractice insurance are justified.
The "problem" is not a creature of the recent twenty-first century, it has recently changed from a cell to a complete tumor. On the contrary, the "problem" has existed for decades. For example, in September 1976, the Nevada Legislative Council Legislative Council issued Announcement No. 71-1 entitled "Medical Accident Insurance Issues". This announcement is mainly from Senate Resolution 21 [1975], in which the study is mandatory. The resolution states that
In view of the fact that doctors and health care providers have access to medical accident insurance across the country, many of them have escaped the coverage of medical accidents, while other insurance companies have increased their insurance premiums by 100%; and...
Given that the problem of medical malpractice in Nevada was previously in a state of transition, the exact dimensions of some of these issues are unclear; ... the communiqué found that the "so-called medical malpractice crisis" began in the early 1970s, including high The two issues of premium cost and insurance availability decline.
B. Historical reasons
It is important to have a general understanding of the so-called "causes" of the crisis in order to assess whether the proposed "solution" is reasonably related to the protected benefits of the purchase. In the 1976 bulletin, the committee identified some potential reasons. First, the committee found that there was no single "cause." These include: [a] the medical malpractice itself; [b] the media; [c] national litigation; [d] contingency fees; [e] no fault insurance; [f] stock market losses; [g] underwriting; Jury verdict.
Although these are not all reasons, they represent the most frequently discussed issues. However, the committee did conclude that the main cause of the medical malpractice crisis was the medical malpractice itself. Ten years later, the Legislative Council revisited the crisis and in August 1986 issued the "Medical Accident Insurance Research Report" in the Legislative Council of the Nevada Legislative Council, No. 13 Bulletin. 87-18. [Appendix IV]. The announcement acknowledged that between 1976 and 1983, the national medical accident insurance rate rose only 51%. However, the circulation again caused a sharp increase in 1984 and 1985. Id. This once again aroused the interest of the legislative community. This time, in addition to the reasons discussed earlier, the committee also said, "The insurance industry is at least partially responsible."
C. Historical solutions
As early as the 1976 committee study, a solution to the so-called crisis was proposed. One of the proposed solutions includes "infringement reform". These reforms include jurisdiction over jury verdicts. ID. However, as early as this report, the evidence indicates that the statistical probability of the plaintiff's success is very low, and any such restrictions have little practical impact on insurance rates and availability. The 1976 announcement stated that "only 8% of all claims have been tried. Only 6% of them have been judged." Only 17% of them voted in favour of the plaintiff. "
D. Problems in the 21st century
With historical perspectives and understanding, we will be caught in an immediate crisis, leading to the final initiative of NRS §41A.035, limiting non-economic losses to $350.00.00. The clear objectives behind this infringement reform campaign include: [a] reducing the rate of medical accident insurance premiums; [b] stabilizing the availability of insurance markets and insurance; and [c] ensuring the provision of medical services to citizens of Nevada.
NRS §41A.035 was introduced in 2003 as Senate Bill 97, which tracks active petitions and potential votes to voters. The history of legislation is complete, referring to the determination of Senate Bill 97 and the language of the balloting initiative. Therefore, although the legislature itself does not have NRS §41A.035, the discussion before the legislature is still informative and relevant. On March 23, 2003, Dr. Manthei, a person whose name was on the initiative petition, tested in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee and condemned: "What we are talking about now is only the number of cases and the amount of rewards being Manufacturing health care can't afford it."
On March 5, 2003, Ms. Alice Molasky-Arman, Director of the Insurance Division of Nevada, addressed the Senate Judiciary Committee. She tested that between 1999 and 2001, 296 of the 552 claims were filed without compensation. She further tested that in July 2002, the number of claims filed surged. ID. Molasky-Arman said that the 2002 infringement reform did not lead to a decline in insurance rates. Both Lawrence Matheis and Barkley Barkley said that the reforms would not lead to a decline in premiums. At best, I hope that reform can achieve stability. ID.
In discussing the reasons for the increase in insurance premiums in Nevada, Ms. Molasky-Arman included the following reasons: [a] reinsurance; [b] lack of competition between insurance companies; [c] stock market losses. She did not join her statement on the jury verdict and its impact on rates.
Due to the above-mentioned background of the so-called "crisis", Nevada citizens were hailed by the media of supporters and opponents of the voting initiative. Citizens passed legislation embodying NRS §41A.035 due to concerns about the inability to provide medical services. To say the least, this is a chaotic contradiction. We will examine this issue in detail in the next EZINE article, or you can write to us or email us and we will provide you with a list of possible solutions we are currently taking on behalf of our medical malpractice customers.
Copyright 2008, www.HugginsLaw.com All rights reserved.
Orignal From: Nevada's torture infringement reform
No comments:
Post a Comment