Fulton County Superior Court Judge Marvin Arrington ruled recently that Georgia's $350,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice suits is unconstitutional, finding that it gives special protections to the medical profession.
"The statute effectively puts substantial limitations on the rights of the poor and middle class to recovery while leaving the right to virtually unlimited recoveries unimpeded for the wealthy," Arrington said. "The disabled manager of a hedge fund, a corporate CEO, an entertainer or such other person whose income is in the tens of millions of dollars has a claim under Georgia law that would dwarf the amount awarded in any case for pain and suffering."
The judge made this ruling in a medical negligence case which has yet to go to trial, so the impact of his decision is unclear at this point. The plaintiffs will have to be successful and the defendant will have to appeal (and lose) in order to create precedent; otherwise, it's just a point to argue in other cases.
Apparently, Judge Arrington has made some controversial rulings in the past and has been reversed by the Georgia Supreme Court on some of them. Nonetheless, I applaud his courage for speaking out against the injustice he sees first-hand in his courtroom.
The cap on noneconomic damages in Texas, by the way, is $250,000. And don't give me that crap about "stacking" two or three limits (for a $500,000 or $750,000 cap). Those scenarios were pitched by the insurance lobby when they rammed tort reform through the pliant Texas Legislature in 2003 but they have no basis in reality. You and your family are worth $250,000 if you get malpracticed on in Texas these days.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In case you didn't see this morning's editorial commending Judge Arrington's ruling, here it is:
OUR OPINIONS: Pain, suffering --- and fairness
By Maureen Downey
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Published on: 05/06/08
How much should a victim of shoddy medicine be compensated? In 2005, the state Legislature decided that its members were better qualified to answer that question than juries of Georgia citizens who sat through weeks of malpractice lawsuits, carefully weighing testimony and evidence.
For example, lawmakers capped the amount a person can collect for pain and suffering, leaving settlements to depend more on the value of a victim's economic worth. Because of his higher earnings, a corporate CEO disabled by a drunken or incompetent surgeon would be able to claim far more in malpractice compensation than would a stay-at-home mother or a child.
In a victory for consumers, a Fulton Superior Court judge struck down the law, ruling last week that it creates a two-tiered system of victims. "The statute effectively puts substantial limitations on the rights of the poor and middle class to recovery while leaving the right to virtually unlimited recoveries unimpeded for the wealthy," wrote Judge Marvin Arrington. "The disabled manager of a hedge fund, a corporate CEO, an entertainer or such other person whose income is in the tens of millions of dollars has a claim under Georgia law that would dwarf the amount awarded in any case for pain and suffering."
The law also exempts the medical profession from the responsibility demanded of every other field. Why should a person who loses a limb through the negligence of a truck driver, for example, merit more in damages than a person disabled because of the negligence of a doctor?
If appealed, as seems likely, Arrington's decision will set the stage for a Georgia Supreme Court showdown over tort reform. The court ought to throw the law out.
—- Nina Mason, Lex Communications
Post a Comment