• Government
• Profession
• Business
• Opinion
• Health

• Health reform
• H1N1
• P4P
• EMRs
• Medicare
• Liability
• AMA House
• » More

• Book Excerpt
• Business Pitch
• Meetings
• » More

• Contract Language
• Ethics Forum
• In the Courts
• Practice Management
• Technically Speaking
• » More

• Issue dates
• Regions
• Health plans
• Sections
• News briefs
• Columns
• Editorials
• Letters
• Writers
• Other years

• Search tips
• E-mail alert
• Radio
• RSS
• Mobile
• Subscribe
• Institutions
• Staff directory
• Advertising
• Permissions
• Reprints
• News media
• Site guide
• Useful links
• About
• Premium
• Contact

Ballot battle: Two professions square off over attorney fees and quality of care.

Florida residents will vote in November on competing medical liability proposals; all could become law.

By Tanya Albert, amednews staff. Sept. 6, 2004.

• PRINT|
• E-MAIL|
• RESPOND|
• REPRINTS|
• SHARE

Doctors and lawyers in Florida have taken the tort reform fight to a new level -- dueling ballot initiatives.

On Nov. 2, Florida citizens will vote "yes" or "no" on three proposed constitutional amendments that address medical liability issues. Early polling shows that all of them are likely to pass.

The ballot box battle comes a little more than a year after the Florida Legislature passed a $500,000 noneconomic damages cap that doctors say won't prevent premium hikes that are forcing them to leave the state, retire early or forgo high-risk procedures.

To solve the problem, doctors are proposing a constitutional change that would limit the amount that trial lawyers could collect in medical malpractice lawsuits so that injured patients get a bigger chunk of awards.

Trial lawyers are proposing two constitutional amendments. The first -- commonly referred to as the "three-strikes" rule -- calls for stripping doctors of their medical licenses if they have three medical malpractice judgments against them. The second amendment would let patients see medical records and reports connected with "adverse" incidents, including documents generated during peer-review procedures.

Between now and Election Day, airwaves will be buzzing with ads telling voters why they should vote for or against each constitutional change.

The amendment battle is widely portrayed as two professions pitting themselves against one another. But many of the people involved insist the campaigns are about quality health care.