Release of Report on Med Mal Venue Changes Is Delayed 1 Month
The controversial proposal is seen by many lawyers as returning the venue rules back to where they were before sweeping changes came to health insurance law in 2002.
January 02, 2020 at 01:01 PM
4 minute read
The release of the Pennsylvania Senate Budget and Finance Committee's report on the closely watched issue of whether the state should change its medical malpractice venue rules has been delayed a month, but is expected to be released to the public in early February.
The committee, which had been given until Jan. 1 to submit its report to the Senate, is set to release its highly anticipated report at a public meeting of the full General Assembly on Feb. 5.
According to the Budget and Finance Committee's executive director, Patricia Berger, the committee is delaying the release so that the report can be presented to the legislature when both houses are in session, and, aside from a brief window Jan. 7, the next time both houses will be in session at the same time is in early February.
"It was a scheduling thing," Berger said, adding that the timing issue had been recognized and discussed soon after the process was adopted. "That was acceptable to the Senate leadership."
The report, Berger said, has largely been completed.
"We have the report. We're in the process of finishing the draft. Polishing it, as it were," she said.
The committee was tasked with reviewing potential impacts of the controversial medical malpractice venue rule changes in February, after the state Supreme Court agreed to hold off on considering whether to implement the changes until after an impact study could be completed.
The Supreme Court's announcement came after members of the medical industry and defense bar pushed back against the proposed changes, which seek to allow injured plaintiffs to sue in any venue where their health care provider regularly does business. The proposed changes would abandon a 16-year-old rule requiring that cases be brought in a county where treatment had been provided. As the rules stand, plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases are limited to suing in the venue where their injuries occurred.
Although many in the plaintiffs bar contended that the changes were necessary because compensation for those who suffer medical malpractice-related injuries has plummeted, the defense bar argued that the changes could lead to venue-shopping.
Any change if adopted would be a major change to the 2002 Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Errors (MCARE) Act.
In proposing the changes, the court's rules committee, which is chaired by Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky attorney David Kwass, noted court statistics showing that the total number of medical malpractice cases have dropped nearly 50% from the pre-MCARE yearly average. The committee's note also said the drop has caused "a decrease of the amount of claim payments resulting in far fewer compensated victims of medical negligence."
"The current rule provides special treatment of a particular class of defendants, which no longer appears warranted," the committee said in its explanatory comment. "The proposed rescission of subdivision (a.1) is intended to restore fairness to the procedure for determining venue regardless of the type of defendant."
The changes were proposed in late December 2018 by the Supreme Court's Civil Procedural Rules Committee, and the court's announcement to postpone considering the changes came a little more than a week before the Feb. 22, 2019, deadline for submitting public comment to the committee on the issue.
The controversial proposal is seen by many lawyers as returning the venue rules back to where they were before sweeping changes came to health insurance law in 2002.
Since the rule changes were announced in December 2018, the court committee process, which typically goes unnoticed by the general public, has received an unusual amount of attention.
After significant pushback from the defense bar and medical industry—including a press conference in the Pennsylvania State Capitol with the Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform, state House Republican leadership and other medical groups—state Sen. Lisa Baker, R-Luzerne, who is the majority chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee, proposed a resolution directing the Legislative Budget and Finance Committee to analyze the potential impacts of the rule change. The proposal was adopted by the Senate on Feb. 5, 2019, by a 31-18 vote.
According to Berger, a draft of the committee's report will be sent to the committee members the week before it is released to the public, and the report will remain confidential until it is released to the full legislature in February. The document should be made available on the committee's website soon after it is released, she said.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Law Firm Leasing Up Nearly 30% Through Q3, With a Growing Number of Firms Staying in Place
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1DOJ Asks 5th Circuit to Publish Opinion Upholding Gun Ban for Felon
- 2GEO Group Sued Over 2 Wrongful Deaths
- 3Revenue Up at Homegrown Texas Firms Through Q3, Though Demand Slipped Slightly
- 4Warner Bros. Accused of Misleading Investors on NBA Talks
- 5FTC Settles With Security Firm Over AI Claims Under Agency's Compliance Program
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250