Details:

AMENDMENT 3

 

Official Title: The Medical Liability Claimant?s Compensation Amendment

 

Ballot Language: Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.

 

Financial Impact Statement: The direct financial impact this amendment will have on state and local government revenues and expenditures cannot be determined, but is expected to be minimal. State agencies will incur some additional costs to comply with public records requirements of the amendment, but these costs will be generally offset by fees charged to the persons requesting the information.

 

Amendment Type: Citizen Initiative

 

Were paid, professional signature gatherers used to place this on the ballot? YES

 

Sponsor: Citizens for a Fair Share, Inc.

 

Proponents: Florida Medical Association

 

Proponents? point of view: This amendment will help to achieve reforms in Florida that are similar to reforms previously passed in California. The basis of these reforms is a cap on attorney fees, which ensures patients receive their fair share of the compensation in a medical liability case.

 

Money Raised (including loans): $6,641,832.63 (October 13, 2004)

 

Top Three Contributors:

 

Florida Medical Association (Florida)

Citizens for Tort Reform (Florida)

American Medical Association (Illinois)

Money Spent: $5,810,856.61 (October 13, 2004)

 

Opponents: Florida Trial Lawyers (www.factsonthree.com)

 

Opponents? point of view: This amendment make Florida?s healthcare system less safe and effective. The opponents say it will limit patient?s access to the courts and cost taxpayers money in order to care for medical malpractice victims.

 

Your Vote: If you support this issue being added to Florida?s Constitution, vote yes. If you do not want it added to the Constitution, vote no.

 

 

Enough is enough!

You do realize this will have zero effect on lawsuits. It just alters contingency fees that a lawyer can get. If the rational of tort reformers is to attack evil lawyers, wont lawyers just sue more often to compensate for this? You know, its how capitalism works. You put price cap on something, and businesses alter based on supply and demand.

[To some degree the doctors need to step up here and police their own ranks - if someone is a repeat offender on something significant but reversible (ex. leaving surgical instruments inside patients), they need to have their ticket pulled. If they do something egregious that's not reversible, like removing the wrong organs or limbs, I would think that's a one-time-and-out kind of offense. 601079[/snapback]

That is part of Amendment 8 I believe it is. A three strikes and you're out rule for doctors and malpractice. Also, there was another Amendment (either 7 or this one is 8 and the previous one I mentioned is 9) about patient's right to know about the doctor's history. Lots of medical stuff this time around.

Juanky where did you find your info on the amendments? Im completely clueless on them and need some guidance. Sometime this week Im going to hope the Student Government funded bus to the election office for some early voting!

You do realize this will have zero effect on lawsuits. It just alters contingency fees that a lawyer can get. If the rational of tort reformers is to attack evil lawyers, wont lawyers just sue more often to compensate for this? You know, its how capitalism works. You put price cap on something, and businesses alter based on supply and demand.

601064[/snapback]

Is it right for a mother that lost her voice due to a severe mental lapse by her doctor during surgery to be awarded more than 4 million dollars, yet 80% of it goes to her attorney when she is the one who is forced to suffer for the rest of her life.

 

Or how about the guy that they did a story about on the local news where he went in for a simple outpatient procedure and walked out paralyzed for life from the neck down because of a mistake by his doctor... he was awarded something like 12 million dollars in court and only got to keep 2 million of it while the rest went to his lawyer.

 

IS THAT RIGHT?

 

NO.

 

You've got to be a real sick individual to vote no on amendment 3.

Juanky where did you find your info on the amendments? Im completely clueless on them and need some guidance. Sometime this week Im going to hope the Student Government funded bus to the election office for some early voting!

601159[/snapback]

Well I had some read up earlier through something the Miami Herald sent to inform everyone of the propositions (not numbers from either side, just what the proposition would do). I basically read the wording and decided at the polls today. I agreed with the three strike rule and the patient knowing about a doctor's history as long as other patient names are not released, and agreed with this as well because it wouldn't really have an effect on the courts, just make sure the plantiff gets money. Some other ammendments that come to mind are the slot machines in Miami and Broward (which I disagreed with on detail not principle, I think if put in Miami hotels to benefit Miami first and then others it would be a great idea, but in race tracks and with alot of the money going elsewhere instead of staying home I didn't like it) and the repeal of the Bullet Train Amendment of four years ago. Let me see if I can dig them up for you, there are also I believe 8 bonds to vote for.

Here Shammy, a sample ballot:

http://elections.metro-dade.com/mdgen-eng.html

 

If you scroll down passed the candidates (this is the Miami Dade ballot) you can see the Amendments and Bonds as presented to the voters at the polls.

True. If you have to put up with the "vice" then you should recieve the benefits. I'll probably vote yes on that one though.

Thank you dood.

True. If you have to put up with the "vice" then you should recieve the benefits. I'll probably vote yes on that one though.

601173[/snapback]

 

Thank you dood.

601174[/snapback]

Anytime

Docs are notoriously bad businessmen, and pushing this amendment only further reinforces the stereotype.

 

Anyone who thinks that the insurance industry will magically reduce premiums b/c of malpractice limits is dreaming. There is no way premiums go down. Ever.

 

Insurance companies aren't stupid.

Good to see some bipartisan sensibility on this issue. Insurance companies and doctors are not getting too much of the slack in the malpractice reform news world. Trial lawyers will always be viewed as ambulance chasers in teh US and hence this stuff will always be an issue. Meanwhile the insurance companies are sittin pretty.

 

 

Incedently, Juanky, doctors are adamently opposed to amendment 8. Like tonyi said, if more policing happend, might not be an issue. If they policed more, then trial lawyers certainly wouldnt have the tort-regulatory argument to make.

You do realize this will have zero effect on lawsuits. It just alters contingency fees that a lawyer can get. If the rational of tort reformers is to attack evil lawyers, wont lawyers just sue more often to compensate for this? You know, its how capitalism works. You put price cap on something, and businesses alter based on supply and demand.

601064[/snapback]

While one would think lawyers ought to be motivated to file more suits to compensate for their loss in income due to "capitalism," it doesn't quite work that way.

 

The supply of (true or perceived) cases of malpractice is relatively constant, so the total population of lawyers can't just expect to file more winnable malpractice suits to make up for the lost earnings. It's not possible. Lawsuits are expensive and risky, and attorneys can only work so many hours in a week.

 

As an analogy, look at the economic model of doctors. You put a price cap on something (e.g., the rise of managed care 10-15 years ago), businesses alter based on supply and demand (assembly line of patients), but the net effect is that the doctor earns considerably less (my mom, for instance, makes less than 1/4 of what she earned some 10-15 years ago). That's capitalism.

 

Two indisputable facts everyone can agree on:

 

1) Malpractice lawyers will earn less if amendment 3 passes.

 

2) Malpractice cases will become less lucrative to trial lawyers if amendment 3 passes.

 

Considering the heavy cost and decreased profitability of suing doctors, wouldn't it make sense that, in the future, lawyers would be less inclined to take on small cases or cases with questionable merit? Even opponents of amendment 3 (trial lawyers) concede it will reduce potential plaintiffs' access to attorneys. I didn't realize anyone would find that a point of contention.

 

You put price cap on something, and businesses alter based on supply and demand.

Makes sense. When an industry becomes less profitable (i.e., there's a constant demand for a service but lower prices), some businesses fold or move on to other ventures. Again, that's capitalism.

[To some degree the doctors need to step up here and police their own ranks - if someone is a repeat offender on something significant but reversible (ex. leaving surgical instruments inside patients), they need to have their ticket pulled. If they do something egregious that's not reversible, like removing the wrong organs or limbs, I would think that's a one-time-and-out kind of offense. 601079[/snapback]

That is part of Amendment 8 I believe it is. A three strikes and you're out rule for doctors and malpractice. Also, there was another Amendment (either 7 or this one is 8 and the previous one I mentioned is 9) about patient's right to know about the doctor's history. Lots of medical stuff this time around.

601083[/snapback]

Amendment 8--put on the ballot along with amendment 7 by trial lawyers--is quite possibly the most fraudulent proposed amendment on the ballot. While at first glance it sounds like a good idea to kick out docs who commit malpractice 3 times, on further examination it becomes clear that the amendment is nothing but an oversimplified shakedown by trial lawyers.

 

Think about it. What would be the financial motivation for trial lawyers to put it on the ballot and pump more than $20 million into a proposal that reduces malpractice?

 

Well, if you dig deeper, you'll notice that amendment 8 only applies to malpractice judgments, not settlements or proven acts of medical negligence. Why? The intended purpose of the amendment is to encourage out-of-court settlements in malpractice lawsuits. That's it. Legitimate laws to get rid of bad doctors should penalize them for repeatedly committing malpractice; this proposed amendment doesn't address patient safety at all and is nothing but a cleverly disguised cash cow made by and intended for trial lawyers.

 

The other (most important) reason why amendment 8 is an absolutely brainless idea is because of the arbitrary limit of "3 strikes" on all physicians--regardless of specialty--including high risk specialists such as OB/GYN's and neurosurgeons who are typically sued numerous times throughout their careers. It's not just an overly simplistic solution; it's utterly idiotic. As a medical student, someone would have to fill my head with flaming horse diarrhea to convince me to settle down and practice a high-risk specialty in a state with such a ridiculous law in place.

 

That said, it'll pass in a landslide just because it sounds like a great idea to most voters not familiar with the details.

Docs are notoriously bad businessmen, and pushing this amendment only further reinforces the stereotype.

 

Anyone who thinks that the insurance industry will magically reduce premiums b/c of malpractice limits is dreaming. There is no way premiums go down. Ever.

 

Insurance companies aren't stupid.

601251[/snapback]

Apparently they are in Texas.

That said, it'll pass in a landslide just because it sounds like a great idea to most voters not familiar with the details.

601304[/snapback]

Just like the previous ammendment for putting pigs in boxes.

 

Everyone voted that boxing pregnant hogs should be banned (oh, it sounds so terrible!).

 

When in actuality, the idea of putting them in boxes while pregnant is so that they won't roll over when sleeping, and kill the fetuses.

 

But, people didnt know, and voted for the amendment.