S. 45 would improve patient access to health care services and provide improved medical care by reducing the excessive burden the liability system places on the health care delivery system.
Detailed Summary
Medical Care Access Protection Act of 2009 or the MCAP Act - Sets forth provisions regulating lawsuits for health care liability claims related to the provision of health care services.
Sets a statute of limitations of three years after the date of manifestation of injury or one year after the claimant discovers the injury, with certain exceptions.
Requires a court to impose sanctions for the filing of frivolous lawsuits.
Limits noneconomic damages to $250,000 from the provider or health care institution, but no more than $500,000 from multiple health care institutions. Makes each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party's percentage of responsibility.
Allows the court to restrict the payment of attorney contingency fees. Limits the fees to a decreasing percentage based on the increasing value of the amount awarded.
Prescribes qualifications for expert witnesses.
Requires the court to reduce damages received by the amount of collateral source benefits to which a claimant is entitled, unless the payor of such benefits has the right to reimbursement or subrogation under federal or state law.
Authorizes the award of punitive damages only where: (1) it is proven by clear and convincing evidence that a person acted with malicious intent to injure the claimant or deliberately failed to avoid unnecessary injury the claimant was substantially certain to suffer; and (2) compensatory damages are awarded. Limits punitive damages to the greater of two times the amount of economic damages or $250,000.
Prohibits a health care provider from being named as a party in a product liability or class action lawsuit for prescribing or dispensing a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved prescription drug, biological product, or medical device for an approved indication.
Provides for periodic payments of future damage awards.
Status of the Legislation
Latest Major Action: 1/6/2009: Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Points in Favor
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)
Points Against
(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)
Visitor Comments
Annon
September 27, 2009, 10:00pm (report abuse)I lost part of my lung due to a DDS not diagnosing nor treating a massive infection even though I took him reports from my Dr. and my oral surgeon. Now Congress wants to limit my damages. Tell you what guys you give me back my lung/health and I'll give you $250,000. I hope they all get an incurable, painful and everlasting disease. I will have to live in constant pain and suffering for the next 40 yrs. I think thats worth a bit more than $250,000 don't you?
Student
March 7, 2010, 6:58pm (report abuse)This seems to be a good way to help people who work in the healthcare field. I am not extremely knowledgeable about it, but so long as it does not give an unreasonable level of protection to workers at the expense of patients it should be helpful. I know people who work in the healthcare field and even though I don't care for them they should still be treated with respect and reasonably protected.
Lindsay W.
September 9, 2010, 2:15pm (report abuse)I completely agree with Annon! There are too many irreversible damages caused by medical professionals to put a limit on their damages. They are licensed professionals and they deserve to be held up to exactly that. If these doctors/nurses mess up while in the scope of employment their employers deserve to be held liable as would any other business. I believe that us, as patients, pay plenty of money for our medical coverage and that most hospitals can more than afford to carry a great insurance plan to cover such incidents. There's no way to compensate a lifetime burden that has been put on someone because of some sort of negligence done by the hospital. Putting a cap on these damages seems ridiculous when it comes to extreme loses by patients. This bill seems like another scheme to make the rich, richer. While giving no relief to the poor and suffering.
The damage caps integrated in this bill are the only reasons I would vote against it. I agree with many other parts of this bill.