Nevada tort reform ballot fight now brewing

Doctors say initiatives backed by trial lawyers undermine their efforts.

By Tanya Albert, AMNews staff. Sept. 13, 2004.

Nevada physicians and trial lawyers are pitching separate ballot initiatives in the Nov. 2 general election, with each side describing its proposals as the way to stabilize skyrocketing insurance rates.

When talking about the need for changes, both sides point to the same statistics. Each says a medical liability insurance company's request for a 26% rate increase after the state Legislature in 2002 passed tort reform shows that doctors need more help on premiums.

But the two sides' solutions are fundamentally different, setting the stage for an election season during which the airwaves will be crowded with competing liability reform ads touting the "best" way to stop physicians from leaving the state, retiring early or discontinuing high-risk procedures.

Doctors and liability insurers are pushing for a measure that would strengthen Nevada's existing $350,000 noneconomic damages cap, limit attorneys' fees, allow doctors to pay awards over time, require that juries be told what medical expenses insurance companies have already covered, and hold physicians responsible only for their portion of damages.

Lawyers are asking voters to approve two ballot questions. The first calls for insurers to roll back rates. The second would require that lawyers who willfully initiate or defend frivolous litigation be held responsible for attorney fees, court costs and other expenses.

The two camps are vigorously fighting for their ballot questions and arguing that the devil is in the details of the others' proposals. The details, each side says, would hurt Nevada patients, not help them.