The Arizona Republic
Apr. 14, 2006 12:00 AM
The state House of Representatives unanimously passed a bill Thursday aimed at curbing frivolous lawsuits against emergency-room workers.
But the chamberwide support belies the deep divisions and controversy behind the measure, which was amended in a bipartisan showdown in the House on Wednesday. The House amendment significantly watered down the bill, with supporters of tort reform claiming it stripped the measure of any significant impact.
The bill, SB 1351, must now go to conference committee to see if the House version can be reconciled with the original Senate bill, which narrowly passed that chamber last month.
The Senate bill would raise the standard of proof needed to win a lawsuit against emergency-room personnel to "clear and convincing" from the current standard of "preponderance of evidence." The House version does not raise the burden of proof but instructs judges and juries to consider the unique situations in emergency-room care, such as the lack of patient records, when making their determination in malpractice cases.
Supporters of the Senate version say that raising the burden of proof is needed to address the shortage of doctors willing to work in emergency rooms.
"We already know there are exceptionally long waits in the emergency room and it is next to impossible to get some specialty services in the emergency room," said Chic Older, executive director of the Arizona Medical Association. "This is a critical bill."
But opponents say requiring patients to show "clear and convincing" evidence would make it next to impossible for patients to win legitimate lawsuits and hold doctors and hospitals accountable when egregious mistakes are made.
If the Senate version of the bill became law, "don't ever take your child through the emergency room," warns Jon Hinz of Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, a group primarily funded by trial lawyers, "because regardless what happens to that child in the hospital, they are immune to any liability, regardless of what happens."
The Senate narrowly passed SB 1351, introduced by Health Committee Chairwoman Sen. Carolyn Allen, on March 14 by a 16-13 vote.
In the House, the amendment striking the "clear and convincing clause" narrowly passed when the measure was up for preliminary approval, then was stripped from the bill in a technical maneuver.
When the bill was brought back up by one of the sponsors on the floor Wednesday, the amendment, sponsored by Democratic attorney Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, was pushed again and passed with attorneys from both parties, including conservative Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, teaming up with Democrats to support it.
Sinema says the bill with the amendment "will protect medical personnel in emergency-room situations adequately" while not letting "bad actors" off the hook for their mistakes.
But other supporters of the original bill vow to strip off the amendment again when the measure goes to conference committee.
Depending on what happens in conference committee, the measure will have to go back to one of the chambers for final approval before going to the governor.
But the chamberwide support belies the deep divisions and controversy behind the measure, which was amended in a bipartisan showdown in the House on Wednesday. The House amendment significantly watered down the bill, with supporters of tort reform claiming it stripped the measure of any significant impact.
The bill, SB 1351, must now go to conference committee to see if the House version can be reconciled with the original Senate bill, which narrowly passed that chamber last month.
| advertisement |  |
|
The Senate bill would raise the standard of proof needed to win a lawsuit against emergency-room personnel to "clear and convincing" from the current standard of "preponderance of evidence." The House version does not raise the burden of proof but instructs judges and juries to consider the unique situations in emergency-room care, such as the lack of patient records, when making their determination in malpractice cases.
Supporters of the Senate version say that raising the burden of proof is needed to address the shortage of doctors willing to work in emergency rooms.
"We already know there are exceptionally long waits in the emergency room and it is next to impossible to get some specialty services in the emergency room," said Chic Older, executive director of the Arizona Medical Association. "This is a critical bill."
But opponents say requiring patients to show "clear and convincing" evidence would make it next to impossible for patients to win legitimate lawsuits and hold doctors and hospitals accountable when egregious mistakes are made.
If the Senate version of the bill became law, "don't ever take your child through the emergency room," warns Jon Hinz of Fairness and Accountability in Insurance Reform, a group primarily funded by trial lawyers, "because regardless what happens to that child in the hospital, they are immune to any liability, regardless of what happens."
The Senate narrowly passed SB 1351, introduced by Health Committee Chairwoman Sen. Carolyn Allen, on March 14 by a 16-13 vote.
In the House, the amendment striking the "clear and convincing clause" narrowly passed when the measure was up for preliminary approval, then was stripped from the bill in a technical maneuver.
When the bill was brought back up by one of the sponsors on the floor Wednesday, the amendment, sponsored by Democratic attorney Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, was pushed again and passed with attorneys from both parties, including conservative Rep. Eddie Farnsworth, teaming up with Democrats to support it.
Sinema says the bill with the amendment "will protect medical personnel in emergency-room situations adequately" while not letting "bad actors" off the hook for their mistakes.
But other supporters of the original bill vow to strip off the amendment again when the measure goes to conference committee.
Depending on what happens in conference committee, the measure will have to go back to one of the chambers for final approval before going to the governor.
Network Member
