Talks continue toward compromise med-mal reform deal

With medical errors on the rise in Indiana and many states ruling caps on malpractice damages unconstitutional, plaintiff and defense lawyers and state officials continued to negotiate behind the scenes toward compromise legislation that could increase Indiana’s $1.25 million cap on medical malpractice awards.

In October, a key lawmaker said stakeholders were close to an agreement on legislation to reform Indiana’s Medical Malpractice Act.

Steele

Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, cited ongoing discussions among stakeholders in pulling proposed draft legislation from consideration Oct. 20 by the Interim Study Committee on Courts and the Judiciary. He read a letter from the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association requesting a delay as talks with representatives of the governor’s office and other officials proceeded.

The committee previously took testimony on proposals to increase the current statutory $1.25 million cap on malpractice damages and revise the medical review panel procedure required before any medical malpractice claim greater than $15,000 may be heard in court.

The ITLA letter indicated parties involved in the discussion were close to an agreement on key issues to be included in legislation when the General Assembly convenes in January.

“I expect everybody to come to the table with an agreed bill,” Steele told the committee.

The discussions came as data from the Indiana State Department of Health showed a record high number of medical errors. The ISDH found 114 preventable adverse medical incidents in hospitals and health care facilities in 2014 – three more than in any of the eight years since the agency started gathering statistics. Errors have topped 100 in seven of nine years, with the previous high 111 errors in 2013, the Associated Press reported.

Steele, who chairs the study committee and the Senate Judiciary Committee, outlined his expectations for legislation. He said a bill should include an increase in the cap, a mechanism to adjust the cap for inflation, and an increase of the $15,000 review panel threshold to $75,000. He said legislation also should cap attorney fees, and vowed to introduce measures with these provisions if an agreed bill doesn’t include them.

Negotiators working on a compromise are motivated by recent court rulings in other states that have struck down caps on medical malpractice as unconstitutional and the possibility of a case arising here with a similar outcome. Steele said those involved in the talks believe, “if we don’t do something, we’re going to mess up the entire (malpractice) act.”•