California Psychiatric Association
Legislative Priorities for 1997
Assembly Bill 250 Literature

Medical Injury Compensation Legislation

Call the California Psychiatric Association Office at 916-442-5196
or the Californians Allied for Patient Protection at 916-448-7992 for the name of your Assembly Member, additional information, or talking points.

The Consumer Attorneys of California (formerly The California Trial Lawyers Association) have begun their long anticipated assault on the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). Two bills have been introduced in the California Assembly that will severely affect the medical malpractice liability caps that exist in MICRA.

A Brief History
In 1975, the governor called the Legislature into special session to solve the medical malpractice crisis that threatened to destroy the delivery of quality health care to Californians. Rising to the occasion, the Legislature created MICRA to address this crisis by:

___Creating the Medical Board of California to assure medical quality and prevent malpractice suits;

___Establishing procedures to assure reasonable malpractice insurance rates; and

___ Reforming the way malpractice cases are conducted. The result of this landmark tort reform legislation is that health care services remain available at affordable prices and that injured patients (not their lawyers) receive fair and just compensation for their injuries.

The two Assembly bills would make changes as follows:

In the first bill, AB 250, by Sheila Kuehl (Assembly Member from Santa Monica) the MICRA cap of $250,000 on non-economic (pain and suffering) compensation awards in medical malpractice suits would not apply where:

___The health care provider consumed alcohol or illegal drugs which impaired, in whole or in part, his or her ability to perform professional services causing injury to the plaintiff.

___The health care provider has had three or more disciplinary actions through the California Medical Board; has had his or her license revoked or suspended, in whole or in part, for conduct, acts, or omissions at issue in the subject action; or, has had three or more adverse judgments against him or her in the past ten years for actions arising out of misconduct.

___The health care provider committed sexual abuse or misconduct upon the plaintiff.

___The injury or death resulted from the health care provider's gross negligence.

___The negligence or misconduct of the health care provider caused death.

___The health care provider negligently caused injuries to a child under the age of fourteen.

The proposed legislation is unnecessary since current law already allows full compensatory recovery for an injury caused by medical malpractice--including punitive damages if there is criminal conduct or intentional conduct.

So tell your legislator that there is no reason to fix this incredibly fair and successful legislative act because it's not broken!

___Money is available to pay damages because every health provider can afford to buy insurance coverage;

__At present, without any amendment to MICRA, patients injured through negligence get competent attorneys to handle their cases;

___Risky but essential medical procedures continue to be performed;

___Litigation costs are held down;

___Professional standards have been raised along with the quality of care;

___The filing of non-meritorious suits which unnecessarily clog the courts and cost taxpayers money is discouraged;

___Without MICRA, health care costs would be dramatically higher.

The second bill being opposed is, AB 1220, by Assembly Member Carole Migden (Assembly Member from San Francisco) It raises the $250,000 MICRA cap if a provider "abuses" the patient relationship in a managed care situation. Under the bill, the cap does not apply if the health provider being sued:

___ Refused or delayed evaluation, diagnosis, treatment or referral and benefited economically;

___Failed to refer to a competent provider who "customarily" performs the evaluation, diagnosis or treatment; or,

___Administered an evaluation, diagnosis or treatment without possessing the appropriate skill, training or expertise.

All of the exceptions listed constitute medical malpractice under current law if the activities listed as exceptions to the
MICRA cap cause injury. The intended appeal is directed toward patient abuse in managed care settings.

This bill increases liability exposure to physicians for decisions made by HMOs and other managed care entities By gutting the MICRA cap, malpractice insurance premiums could rise by at least 50 percent, and could double Defensive measures will have to be taken by physicians, hospitals and other providers which will increase the cost of health care for both payers and individuals Representatives of patients in every medical malpractice case will plead that the $250,000 cap does not apply as leverage for a settlement Counties, The University and the State will find their cost of health care to indigent patients will increase due to this legislation.

You can write to the members of the Assembly Judiciary Committee
Address your letters to:
The Honorable Assembly Member (assembly member's name),
The California State Assembly, (room number)
P O Box 942849,
Sacramento, CA 942849-000

Assembly Judiciary Committee