Archive: Senate Won't Act on Trial Lawyer Bill

(This article is from the Pennsylvania Medical Society's website archives.)

A bill that would permit trial lawyers to quantify damages for pain and suffering for auto accidents will not receive a vote in the state Senate, Majority Leader Dominic Pileggi (R-Delaware) announced.

According to Pileggi, the Senate majority caucused on Monday, Sept. 27, and decided that there were too many objections from the medical, insurance and business communities to put the bill up for a vote.

The Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) strongly believes that damages for pain and suffering should be left up to juries, without suggested award amounts from trial lawyers. 

“If this precedent-setting measure had been passed by the Senate, the camel’s nose would have been under the tent and the next step would have been trial lawyers arguing dollar amounts for pain and suffering in medical liability cases.  That would have been tragic for both patients and physicians,” said PAMED President James A. Goodyear, MD. 

HB 2246 was approved 117-72 by the state House of Representatives on May 3, 2010. It was then sent to the Senate, where it cleared the Transportation Committee on May 4 and the Appropriations Committee on June 28. 

Earlier this year, a handful of bills were introduced in the state House that would loosen tort laws in favor of trial lawyers, increase medical liability payouts, and drive up the cost of liability insurance.  PAMED strongly opposed these bills and coordinated efforts to fight the legislation with other health care and business organizations.  

The bills were introduced at the request of the state’s trial bar association, which now calls itself the Pennsylvania Association for Justice. Those bills haven’t moved, but the language to quantify pain and suffering awards was inserted into HB 2246, which was originally a bill dealing with automobile accident claims.
 

Add Your Comments


The Pennsylvania Medical Society encourages lively debate, but please behave courteously and responsibly. Comments that include profanity, personal attacks (including language that could potentially identify an individual), or any other inappropriate, offensive, or illegal material will be removed. For more information, please see our Terms of Use. We do not answer legal questions on line. Members seeking general information about laws and regulations affecting medical practice may call our member resource line, (800) 228-7823.

Display name as (optional):

Comments (max 2000 characters):




Comments: 10


THIS IS TRULY A FIGHT FOR PHYSICIANS. THESE ATTORNEYS BRING IN FRIVOLOUS LAW SUITS. MOST OF THE AMOUNT THE TRIAL ATTORNEYS TAKE AS ATTORNEY FEES AND A SMALL PART OF IT IS TRULY PAID TO THE PATIENT. THIS IS DISGUSTING. THESE TRIAL ATTORNEYS HAVE NO CONSCIENCE. WHEN THEY SMELL MONEY THEY WILL DO EVERTHING THAT'S UNETHICAL

MINNIE at 10/11/2010 5:19:15 PM


It does sound unethical, and would make PA an even less desirable state for physicians.

anonymous at 10/8/2010 2:03:14 PM


Once again we have lawyers passing bills that benefit lawyers. I would think there is a conflict of interests here. Increased payouts to the plaintiff equals increased payouts to the lawyers. Is anyone concerned about this?? It's not only physicians who have to be wary of financial conflicts of interests!!!

Fran Sirico-Kelly DO at 8/24/2010 10:26:21 AM


HB 2246 would enable trial lawyers themselves to name the amounts of money they would earn (the percentage specified by their contingency agreement with the plaintifs). Most unethical!

anonymous at 8/19/2010 8:59:27 PM


actually i would think that once this is out of the way then the ossue would be dead and not try to extend.

anonymous at 7/1/2010 10:23:04 AM


The reason why we are involved is because the next step by the trial bar will be to extend damages for pain and suffering to medical liability cases. It's better to fight it now and not allow a precedent to be set.

PA Medical Society at 6/30/2010 4:27:47 PM


This bill has nothing to do with medical negligence. I agree with Semelweis. It's not our fight. We should stay out of it.

anonymous at 6/30/2010 11:41:02 AM


Does this bill apply to med negligence actions or only vehicular negligence? Do we as physicians lose our "clout" if we try to exert influence on not medical issues? Is the current use of experts common law or statutory?

Semelweis at 6/28/2010 9:04:59 AM


Doctor: How are you feeling? Patient: My back is so bad I can't enjoy doing anything. Doctor: What have you done for the pain? Patient: I told my lawyer, and he said that you should be sure to write in your medical notes that the pain s getting worse and I can't sleep, and no pills will help.

D.B. Sussman, MD at 6/24/2010 5:19:26 PM


This amounts to nothing more than leading the witness. Most lawyers would object if their opposing council did this in court. A reasonable judge would sustain the objection.

anonymous at 6/24/2010 5:00:15 PM

Last Updated: 2/14/2011
From: 
Email:  
To: 
Email:  
Subject: 
Message: