Contorting the judicial process

By Brad Jewitt
web posted August 9, 2004

Women's health care has taken a hit recently in Maryland. The
culprit: high medical malpractice insurance premiums. The result:
a group of women -- some of them pregnant -- with no doctor.

Put simply, the doctor couldn't afford to practice anymore
because of rising malpractice insurance premiums. One of the
women was forced to plead with her doctor to keep practicing
another seven days -- simply so this doctor could deliver her
baby. The doctor, his insurance provider, and the patients were
all victims of an ever-growing medical liability crisis in which the
threat of excessive, unpredictable, and costly lawsuits has driven
up the cost and availability of health care.

What makes this story all the more heartbreaking is that these
women aren't alone in their plight. Just two years ago, the
Baltimore Sun ran a story about 188 pregnant women who were
forced to find a new ob/gyn in the middle of their pregnancies
after their doctor couldn't afford to deliver babies anymore
because his insurance premiums had tripled.

According to a recent survey, nearly one-third of Maryland's ob-
gyns will cease to deliver babies because doing so would reduce
malpractice insurance premiums. Yes, you read that correctly:
One-third!

All over the country ob-gyns are quitting the practice, no longer
delivering babies, reducing the number they do deliver, and
further cutting back care for high-risk patients, the uninsured, and
the underinsured. Lawsuit after lawsuit -- with huge settlement
awards in tow -- has forced many devoted and talented
caregivers out of business.

CBSNews.com has reported that some doctors who have never
even been sued are facing insurance premiums that have doubled
every year since 2002. According to insurance industry
representative P.J. Crowley, "Medical malpractice costs are all
about lawsuits, settlements and jury awards." Indeed, the cost of
malpractice insurance in the nation's capital can be as high as
$300,000 per year.

Given this information, it is interesting that John Kerry has chosen
John Edwards as his vice-presidential running mate. John
Edwards is a pro-litigation and anti-liability reform candidate,
who will certainly not support the changes necessary in this vital
area. In fact, when the Senate voted recently to consider a
reform bill designed to improve women's access to vital care,
Sen. Edwards voted against even considering the bill. On a
similar vote earlier in the year, he didn't even show up. This is not
leadership.

This is especially telling since Edwards, who constantly reminds
voters of his modest upbringing, became a multi-millionaire by
winning gargantuan settlements in tort cases. Edwards
specialized in suing obstetricians on behalf of babies born with
cerebral palsy, convincing juries that these babies would have
been spared their disability if only the doctors had performed
Cesarean sections during delivery.

It apparently does not matter that experts in neurology have
refuted Edwards' claims, stating that doctors can do nothing
about babies born with this neurological disorder. Nor does it
seemingly matter that those who ultimately pay the price for these
malpractice suits are normal people like you and me, who will
see our medical costs rise and the quality of our medical care
decrease as more and more doctors find they are unable to
compete with malpractice attorneys.

Now consider the audacity of John Edwards, who complained
during the Democratic primaries that medical insurance costs in
this country are too high! Will we be surprised when a man who
has directly contributed to unaffordable insurance premiums calls
for the government to step in and "fix" this problem?

My opponent in this year's congressional race, Rep. Steny
Hoyer (D-Md.), a trial lawyer himself, has consistently acted as
an obstacle to reforming tort law. In 2003 alone, Steny Hoyer
voted against HR 5, the Medical Liability Act, and against HR
1115, the Class Action Reform Bill.

We do not need "leaders" at the executive and legislative levels
who are content to exploit the aggrieved for economic gain. On
the contrary, what we need in this country is tort reform. We
must place checks and limits on a judicial system that has
awarded trial lawyers for exploiting the hardships of their clients
and the sympathies of juries, all to the detriment of everyday
citizens who are beginning to realize the true costs of these
antics.

Opponents to tort reform complain that legislation to limit
medical malpractice awards restricts the rights of plaintiffs to gain
compensation for deficient medical attention. But while legitimate
malpractice claims likely outweigh unreasonable ones, we must
nonetheless ensure that judges award damages in proportion to
the injustices involved.
 
It is time for Congress to pass legislation that limits the judiciary's
ability to award inflated settlements. More important, it's time for
Americans to demand that their elected representatives act to
curb this disease.

Mothers and their children deserve the medical care lost through
excessive litigation and extravagant malpractice settlements. This
certainly need not occur by increasing our tax burden even
further to centralize our medical system, but rather by holding to
account unreasonable trial lawyers and judges who are more
content to exploit the caregivers we all depend on than to ensure
fairness in the judicial process.
 
Brad Jewitt is the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in
Maryland's Fifth Congressional District. To learn more about the
Jewitt for Congress campaign, please visit our website at
www.jewitt2004.com, or call (301) 486-0089.

Enter Stage Right -- http://www.enterstageright.com