Tort Reform Supporters Overlook the Reasons Why Patients Sue
Recently, columnist Harold Mandel, a supporter of tort reform, examined the various reforms made around the country, including in West Virginia. He concludes that despite tort reforms that have already been made, medical liabilities that still exist threaten to bury the medical profession.
He claims that the tort reforms that have been enacted or upheld in various states have resulted in lower liability premiums and fewer doctors fleeing to states with lower caps. Mandel considers it a victory that this past July, the West Virginia Supreme Court upheld a reduction of the non-economic damages cap from $1 million to $250,000. At the same time, he frowns upon rulings by state supreme courts in Illinois and Georgia, which struck down caps of $350,000 and $500,000 as being unconstitutional.
Mandel believes that where people are allowed to sue their physicians, danger follows. Doctors who have to defend against malpractice suits pay an average of $47,158, an increase of 63% since 2001. In New York and Florida, it is not uncommon for doctors to pay premiums of around $200,000. And surgeons who get sued are -- not surprisingly -- more likely to burn out and experience depression.
What Mandel and other tort reform supporters will never say is that medical malpractice suits may be perfectly justified. In fact, a cap of $250,000 may be far too low to make up for the pain and suffering caused by a completely preventable error.
Over 200,000 deaths occur each year nationally due to physician error, and an untold number of injuries and overdoses. Most patients don't have the option of reviewing a doctor's success rate or the death/error rate from hospital to hospital. Instead, we must trust what the doctor says and submit to his or her care. When something goes wrong through no fault of our own, we want answers.
Many hospitals are surprisingly -- or maybe unsurprisingly -- unwilling to give them. Research has shown that hospitals that disclose preventable errors to patients are more likely to face lawsuits -- so hospitals don't reveal them. One recent study found that hospital underreporting is greater than ever. Among Medicare beneficiaries, hospital reporting systems captured only 14% of the patient harm events.
Key Legal Takeaways & Summary
Essential West Virginia Legal Principles Established in This Case:
- •This analysis of "Tort Reform Supporters Overlook the Reasons Why Patients Sue" highlights the essential legal protections and obligations established under West Virginia civil and statutory law.
- •Under West Virginia's modified comparative negligence framework (W. Va. Code § 55-7-13a), an injured motorist may recover damages provided their degree of fault does not exceed 50%.
- •Preserving physical evidence—including vehicle electronic data recorder (EDR) logs, witness statements, and accident reconstruction data—is vital immediately following a collision.
Frequently Asked Questions
Common questions and legal analysis regarding claims under West Virginia law:
What steps should I take immediately after a motor vehicle accident in West Virginia?
Seek prompt medical attention, ensure law enforcement completes an official crash investigation report, document scene photographs, and avoid providing recorded statements to insurance adjusters before consulting counsel.
How does comparative fault affect car accident settlements in West Virginia?
West Virginia follows the 51% bar rule: if a driver is determined to be 20% at fault, their total damages are reduced by 20%. If they are found 51% or more responsible, recovery is completely barred.
Related Practice Resources & Analysis
Injured in West Virginia?
Don't wait to get the legal representation you deserve. Contact our experienced attorneys today for a free case evaluation.
Call (800) 559-8765