Your Congressman Voted for limits on Malpractice Awards.

My opponent voted against a bill that passed on medical malpractice reform, HR 5 (Roll Call 64) on March 13, 2003. It was a close vote, 229 to 196. This bill imposed "reasonable" (?) limits on attorneys' fees and punitive damages in medical malpractice cases. More recently in May 2004 he voted to limit malpractice awards to $250,000. I would have voted against HR 5 and against the more recent proposal. There are problems with absolute caps on anything. For example, in the state of Texas, a similar measure was passed in the summer of 2003 by a similarly scant majority of the people. All the doctors and insurance companies of course supported the measure. However, some of the groups who opposed it were Texas Eagle Forum (this is the Texas affiliate of Phyllis Schlafly's outfit which defeated the so-called Equal Rights Amendment), Mothers Against Drunk Driving, etc. There was a cap of $750,000 per case. Well, if a doctor cuts off the wrong leg (as has happened several times in Florida) or if they give a poor Mexican girl a liver for a transplant from a person with an incompatible blood type (at Duke University Hospital, no less!) then $750,000 just doesn't cut it, as far as I'm concerned. A better solution than absolute caps would be the 'British System' of 'loser pays' (you can get your case insured, byt the way, so that the insurance company pays if you lose). This would be a superior solution, and I'll introduce legislation to do this when elected. Don't hold your breath waiting for my opponent to do it, since it will drastically reduce the demand for lawyers and lawsuits, especially truly frivolous ones. In fact, Sam Johnson voted for similar caps on attorney's fees again in February of 2005.