Physicians in California could lose the valuable protections of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) if a case before a state court of appeal is reversed.
The case, Lora v. Universal Health Services, examines whether the state’s MICRA cap on non-economic damages violates the right of trial by jury and equal protection. California’s historic tort reform law has helped keep insurance premiums low and ensured patients in the state have access to affordable health care by placing a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical liability lawsuits.
Dioresly Lora was hospitalized at Palmdale Regional Medical Center for an asthma attack. While in a telemetry monitoring unit, she suffered cardiorespiratory arrest and was discovered with no pulse or blood pressure. After she was administered CPR, she was transferred to an intensive care unit. She became cognitively impaired and tracheostomy-dependent.
Lora sued Universal Health Services, the owner and operator of Palmdale Regional Medical Center, claiming that the nurses failed to properly monitor her condition. Following a jury trial, the hospital was found liable. Not counting non-economic losses, the damages came to more than $18 million. In addition, the jury found non-economic damages of slightly more than $3 million. The hospital filed a post-trial motion to reduce the non-economic damages to $250,000, pursuant to MICRA.
Lora opposed the motion, arguing, in part, that the MICRA cap violated the right of trial by jury. She further argued that the cap violated equal protection, in part because inflation had eroded the original amount of compensation. The trial court granted the motion to reduce the non-economic damages. Lora has appealed to the California Court of Appeal.
The Litigation Center of the AMA and State Medical Societies, along with the California Medical Association, California Hospital Association and California Dental Association, is backing Universal Health Services. The groups filed an amicus brief last month supporting the MICRA cap.
The brief pointed to a recent California proposition, rejected by the state’s voters, which would have allowed an increase in MICRA’s $250,000 cap. It also stated that the case boiled down to a single question—whether there is a constitutional right to unlimited economic damages.
“The Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have consistently answered that question in the negative,” the brief said.
Visit the AMA Litigation Center’s Web page to learn more about this case and others related to professional liability and tort reform.
