Tuesday, May 13, 2003 | 11:19 a.m.
CARSON CITY -- The Senate bill proposing changes to the state's medical malpractice insurance law was widely criticized in the Democrat-controlled Assembly Judiciary Committee this morning.
After intensely questioning medical representatives, the committee was expected to either kill the bill or completely rewrite it with amendments.
Senate Bill 97 had already been amended on the Senate floor in the closest vote of the session after fiery debate. The bill would remove any exceptions from the state's $350,000 cap on non-economic jury awards in malpractice cases, essentially negating Assembly Bill 1, the law created last summer in a special session.
The changes proposed by SB97 are nearly identical to those in an initiative petition voters will consider next year.
Assembly Majority Leader Barbara Buckley, D-Las Vegas, allowed Nevada State Medical Association Director Larry Matheis about an hour's worth of testimony about the state's medical insurance crisis before she began grilling him.
"We have had testimony on the insurance reform measures that says, 'Don't pass tort reform if you want premiums to go down,' " Buckley reminded Matheis. "You know that, so why do you think if we pass SB97, we'll get lower premiums?"
Matheis said he thought SB97 would "stabilize" the market. Buckley asked: "Why won't that same stability come with AB1?" Matheis said the state's new malpractice reform law has not yet withstood judicial review. The law took effect Oct. 1, 2002.
"I think that's disengenous," Buckley said.
Buckley said hard caps, like the one envisioned in SB97, when included with other provisions limiting the pool of resources available to those suing doctors, have been ruled unconstitutional in other states which try them.
"It's very foolish and it's very risky constitutionally," Buckley said.
archive
