Lawsuit limits go far beyond medical cases

JEFFERSON CITY. Mo. -- When Republicans talk about the need for new limits on injury lawsuits, the doctors typically are out front -- often literally in their white coats, not merely rhetorically.

But some Democrats suggest the doctors are only a front -- sympathetic faces that mask the true effect of the legislation.

Indeed, what Republicans call "tort reform" would apply not only to medical malpractice cases.

The proposed restrictions also would apply to such things as car accidents, slip-and-fall injuries, dog bites, property damage, defamation, wrongful death and product liability cases -- be they against tobacco companies, pharmaceutical makers or local mom-and-pop retailers.

In essence, the lawsuit restrictions apply to about everyone seeking money from a business or individual alleged to have harmed them.

Of the more than 20,000 tort cases filed in Missouri during the 2003 fiscal year, barely 6 percent were medical malpractice lawsuits, according to the Office of State Courts Administrator.

When other forms of litigation are included -- such as contract disputes, divorces and real estate conflicts -- medical malpractice lawsuits made up less than half of 1 percent of the 321,336 civil court filings in 2003, the latest year for which statistics are available on the state Web site.

And yet, the political spotlight continues to shine on doctors.

When Republican legislative leaders outlined their "tort reform" legislation at a news conference two weeks ago, they were surrounded by 10 physicians in white coats.

When Republican Gov. Matt Blunt praised the legislation last week, he did so in the conference room of the Jefferson City Medical Group. He, too, was surrounded by 10 white-coated physicians -- some of whom had also appeared at the legislative news conference.

And when the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony last week on the legislation, the focus again was malpractice claims. Physicians were the first to testify in support of the bill; victims of medical errors were the first to testify against it.

Supporters of the legislation are quick to cite the rising rates of medical malpractice insurance for doctors, hospitals and medical groups. They say insurance costs are causing doctors to retire, move elsewhere or quit performing high-risk procedures, such as delivering babies.

They contend the best way to keep doctors in practice is to cut down on litigation by limiting where lawsuits can be filed and how much victims can win.

"By suing all of the doctors, they're driving doctors out of the state and limiting access to health care," said Rep. Richard Byrd, R-Kirkwood, the lead sponsor of the bill.

Opponents of the legislation generally agree on the need for litigation reform in medical malpractice cases. But they question why the bill must provide greater legal protections to all businesses.

During last week's committee hearings, Democratic Rep. John Burnett asked physicians what they thought about their medical malpractice legislation being "hijacked" by business interests.

Burnett, a Kansas City lawyer who represents injured plaintiffs, explained later that he, too, believes physicians face a crisis because of their insurance rates.

But "medical malpractice is an infinitesimally small part of the tort system," Burnett said. "So we have a legitimate group with a legitimate problem come to the legislature and all the other groups pile on."

On Friday, Blunt teamed with his economic development director to travel from St. Louis to Cape Girardeau to Springfield promoting the lawsuit legislation as part of his plan for improving the economy.

"This isn't just about doctors. This is about fixing a litigation system for every Missourian," Blunt explained a day earlier in Jefferson City.

Of course, Blunt was standing besides doctors when he said that.