Tort laws are known as legislations that require monetary compensations for personal injuries from an individual or organization. Tort reforms initially introduced in the 1970s aimed to limit the amount of money that plaintiffs can receive for damages caused by the defendant’s direct or indirect fault (“Impact of tort reform on personal injury cases,” 2018). Specifically, it significantly affected medical malpractice cases because most American states adopted these reforms to limit compensations for damages (Agarwal et al., 2019). For example, California was the first state to establish a $250,000 cap for medical injuries cases (Agarwal et al., 2019). Other states also implemented this change to financial compensation that was never adjusted for inflation (“Impact of tort reform on personal injury cases,” 2018). Examples of tort reforms include mandatory periodic payments, collateral-source reform, caps on damages, joint liability reform, and patient compensation funds (Agarwal et al., 2019). According to the systematic review by Agarwal et al. (2019), caps on non-economic damages reduced rates of using unnecessary laboratory tests and radiologic imaging by physicians. Still, other limitations on damage compensations did not have a significant impact on the quality of patient care.
The three proposals for tort reforms that I would support are caps on damages, mandatory periodic payments, and patient compensation funds. Firstly, the tort reform for medical malpractice was proposed because there was an increase in court cases with substantial compensations before implementing the reform (Agarwal et al., 2019). Although health damages due to medical errors can be tragic for patients and their families, the court cases do not solve the original problem. Moreover, the threat of a lawsuit is one of the primary reasons for high healthcare costs in the United States (Agarwal et al., 2019). Therefore, I would support caps on damages for medical malpractice to reduce the utilization of unnecessary diagnostic tests. Secondly, I would recommend the proposal for such tort reform as mandatory periodic payments. This reform allows insurance companies to pay malpractice payments in portions because some compensation may be too high to be paid at once (Agarwal et al., 2019). The third reform was proposed to provide physicians with malpractice liability insurance from the government (Agarwal et al., 2019). I think it is crucial to give doctors additional support in their practice.
I cannot entirely agree with the first and second proposals in my classmate’s post, but I support the second one. My fellow is right that police misconduct should be stopped; however, tort reform would increase the gap in power between police and citizens, limiting the latter’s ability to receive compensation for damages from the former. Similarly, the intentional tort reform would not allow receiving plaintiffs to receive appropriate compensation for damage. Still, I think that my classmate is correct in stating that intentional torts are challenging to prove. Finally, I agree that a proposal for medical tort reform would benefit American society. Placing caps on compensatory payments would reduce healthcare costs and decrease defensive behavior among doctors (Agarwal et al., 2019). However, as I understood from the post, my fellow probably misunderstood the tort reform and believes it would result in higher compensations for patients. I agree that misdiagnosis or incorrect treatment causes tremendous pressure on patients and caregivers, but introducing better care practices in hospitals would be more effective than a punitive approach.
Reference
Agarwal, R., Gupta, A., & Gupta, S. (2019). The impact of tort reform on defensive medicine, quality of care, and physician supply: A systematic review. Health Services Research, 54(4), 851-859.
Impact of tort reform on personal injury cases. (2018). Justia.