I got these quotes from the following article- http://cbsloc.al/VKZHo0 .
This may be a biased blog to ask the question, but I am curious to see what others have to say. Post your comments below, and if you’re using facts and figures, please cite a source.
“Supporters of reinstating the 2005 damages cap have proposed constitutional amendments and suggested legislation that would eliminate the common law right to file a lawsuit over health care services while replacing it with a statutory right to sue.
The Missouri State Medical Association said the Legislature has been allowed to limit damages for a cause of action that it creates. Jeff Howell, the association’s director of government relations and general counsel, said doctors’ insurance premiums and health care costs are likely to increase without a limit on liability.
“It’s a perilous thing to try to accomplish and one that flies in the face of the authors of our Missouri Constitution and frankly our United States Constitution and one that the citizens of this state should be very leery of,” said Tim Dollar, the president of the Missouri Association of Trial Attorneys. “The constitutional right to jury trial is something that’s been a part of our system since its inception.”
Dollar, a lawyer in Kansas City, said the cap is an attempt to carve out a single group and give immunity from negligence while allowing politicians to decide appropriate damages instead of a jury.”
Now the question you need to ask yourself is this? Who stands to loose the most by passing or not passing Tort Reform? Either way the doctors will still be there, but the trial attorneys??? Hmmm…..
Again I’m always interested in hearing your thoughts.
Thanks
Matt – Legally Mine
