June 17, 2004
Notes from the tort "reform" wars

Time again to check in on how the tort "reform" measure Prop 12 is affecting insurance rates.

[Lt. Gov. David] Dewhurst criticized G.E. Medical Protective Co., or MedPro, for seeking a 19 percent increase in the rates it charges doctors and dentists for malpractice insurance, after the Legislature enacted new limits on civil justice lawsuits.

Jay Thompson, an attorney for the company, said higher rates were justified. The company is now seeking a 10 percent increase.

Maybe someone ought to tell Chris Hawk, that paragon of Hippocrates, that he should consider not treating anyone associated with the insurance industry, too.

Posted by Charles Kuffner on June 17, 2004 to Legal matters | TrackBack

If we have to do [x] to prevent [y], why not make [x] conditional on [y]?

For instance, if we have to enact lawsuit caps in order to prevent rising malpractice insurance costs, then we could enact lawsuit caps only for insurers who do not raise their rates above a certain amount.

That's predicated on the theory that the reason we want [x] is the same as the reason we said we wanted [x], of course...

Posted by: Michael on June 18, 2004 2:42 PM

Good point, Michael.

Charles, thanks for the post - it's the first I've heard about this "movement."

FWIW, refusing to treat or employ someone based on the occupation of their parent or spouse ought to be a crime. Employees and patients, especially children, shouldn't be penalized for what their spouse or parent does for a living.

You can easily see where this nonsense could lead: a conservative "Christian" doctor refusing to treat a child whose mother works as a stripper, for instance.

But as long as it's legal, it can work both ways. If Chris Hawk were injured in an auto accident, it'd be poetic justice if he couldn't find a lawyer to take his case to court.

Posted by: Mathwiz on June 21, 2004 9:34 AM