Reorder in the court: Which judges will serve medicine best?

Physicians are getting involved in judicial races as they realize that state supreme courts, not just lawmakers, have an important role in tort reform.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Nov. 4, 2002.

Ohio physicians thought their liability problems were solved in 1997 when their state passed a comprehensive tort reform law. But physicians soon learned that winning over the Legislature and governor was only half the battle.

In 1999, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional, and physicians were thrown back to square one. Equally as frustrating: The vote was 4-3.

Now, one of the judges who voted against tort reform is retiring, and his seat is up for grabs on Nov. 5. And you better believe the Ohio State Medical Assn. is getting the word out to physicians about just how crucial the oft-ignored judicial race is this time around.

"It's important for physicians to know that courts are equally as important as the governor's office or the legislative branch," said Tim Maglione, the OSMA's senior director for government relations.

"They are the final interpreters of the state's constitution. The court's decisions have an effect not only on the practice of medicine, but property taxes we pay and other issues."

Ohio physicians aren't alone in their activism. More and more state medical societies are getting involved in supreme court races.

Physicians in Texas were the first to flex their political muscle in judicial elections -- in 1988. In the past couple of election cycles, doctors in Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Washington have stepped up their efforts to promote judicial candidates.

Tort reform has been a big reason for all of the attention. Physicians in Illinois, Pennsylvania and Washington have also seen their courts strike down tort reform laws. But the small business issues that physicians face are also a driving force. [...]