« Courts - "Judges In Pa. Corruption Case Likely to Evade Civil Charges" Indiana case mentioned | Main | Environment - Don't forget to order the 2009 Edition of the Indiana Environmental Statutes »

Friday, October 30, 2009

Courts - "Kansas Supreme Court hears arguments about caps on damages awarded to patient"

That is the headline to this story yesterday in the Kansas Lawrence Journal World. The subhead is "Case against Lawrence physician attracting great deal of attention." Scott Rothschild reports:

Topeka — Attorneys for a Eudora woman whose doctor removed the wrong ovary said Thursday that a $250,000 cap for damages was unconstitutional.

“It’s a fundamental affront to the court and separation of powers,” said Ned Miltenberg in arguments before the Kansas Supreme Court.

But Bruce Keplinger, an attorney for Dr. Carolyn Johnson, said the Legislature was within its rights to cap damages as a way to help keep insurance companies and doctors in the state.

The cap, Keplinger said, “is vital to the viability of this state. If it goes away, you will be creating the insurance crisis of 2010.”

The state Supreme Court took the case under advisement, and didn’t indicate when it would decide the matter.

The dispute focuses on the case of Amy Miller, who in 2002 went in for surgery for removal of her right ovary. Johnson, of Lawrence, removed her left ovary by mistake.

Miller sued for malpractice and a Douglas County jury awarded her $759,680, which included funds for pain and suffering and future medical expenses.

But the award was knocked down by then-District Court Judge Steve Six — now the state’s attorney general — to comply with the $250,000 cap approved by the Legislature 20 years ago.

The case has drawn the attention of doctors, insurance companies and businesses that support the cap, while unions and plaintiffs’ attorneys want to see the cap shot down.

Miltenberg argued that establishment of such a cap violates a person’s constitutional right to trial by jury, and infringes on the constitutional authority of the judiciary.

But Keplinger said the cap was put in place to promote a public good -- keeping health care and insurance available -- and didn’t infringe on constitutional rights.

Recall this ILB entry from Sept. 6th, headed "Indiana malpractice cap may be challenged."

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 30, 2009 09:34 AM
Posted to Courts in general