Read the Report: Pa. Lawmakers Eye Impact of Proposed Med Mal Venue Rule Changes
"The effects of the proposed rule change on the number of medical malpractice filings and/or the value of medical malpractice payments in Pennsylvania could not be determined with any certainty."
February 03, 2020 at 04:33 PM
3 minute read
The Pennsylvania General Assembly's Legislative Budget and Finance Committee has released its report examining the possible effects of a proposal to change medical malpractice venue rules, finding plenty for both proponents and challengers to like.
The committee, which is made up of members of both the state House and Senate, voted to make the report public Monday, after committee staff worked on the report for nearly a year. Covering a range of topics, including the impacts of decades-old venue changes on professional liability insurance rates and medical malpractice filings, the report tops out at 200 pages.
The changes seek to allow injured plaintiffs to sue in any venue where their health care provider regularly does business, essentially scrapping venue rules put in place in 2002 under the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Errors (MCARE) Act. As the rules stand, plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases are limited to suing in the venue where their injuries occurred.
The report did not provide any recommendations about whether the current venue rules should be scrapped, and in some instances determined that it could not come to any conclusions about what has affected rates and filings over the past few decades, citing in some instances incomplete data and variables outside the scope of the review.
However, the report outlined some details that both sides of the debate are likely to point to as the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's Civil Procedural Rules Committee, which proposed the changes in late 2018, takes up the issue.
Included among the points made in the report:
- "The data indicates there were no measurable effects of venue on the availability of physicians across the commonwealth from the 2003 tort reforms; however, the health care landscape Pennsylvania has significantly changed for physicians since that time."
- "In Pennsylvania from the period 2000 to 2002 compared to the period 2015 to 2017 there was a 44.9% decrease in medical malpractice filings. The shift in claims from Philadelphia and Allegheny counties is prominent and at least one surrounding county has also shown a dramatic increase in claims."
- "The effects of the proposed rule change on the number of medical malpractice filings and/or the value of medical malpractice payments in Pennsylvania could not be determined with any certainty."
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.
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. During the session Monday, she suggested that the committee hold a follow-up public hearing for stakeholders to discuss to the findings.
READ THE REPORT:
|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 AllAppeals Court Rules Pittsburgh School District Immune to Suit Over Sex Abuse of Disabled Student
4 minute readPa. Court Denies Procedurally Deficient Request for Delay Damages in $4.1M Personal Injury Verdict
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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