The Utah Supreme Court's long-awaited decision reversing lower-court dismissals of malpractice suits against two physicians will have significant impact in legal and health-care circles, attorneys predicted.
In declaring unconstitutional a provision in Utah's Health Care Malpractice Act that restricted the ability of minors to file legal claims, the five-member Utah Supreme Court on Tuesday also blasted the premise behind the state's medical malpractice laws."That also makes other sections of the act vulnerable, too," said Roger Christensen, who represented one of the families that appealed.
While physicians and malpractice insurers disagree with Christensen's assessment, they acknowledge the court's decision will be felt by everyone.
"I firmly believe that all of us will eventually pay higher health-care costs as a result of this decision," said Elliot Williams, attorney for both physicians in the separate cases and legal counsel for the Utah Health Insurance Association, which insures physicians against malpractice claims.
The 1976 Legislature passed the Malpractice Act on the premise that soaring medical malpractice insurance premiums, which are eventually passed on to consumers, were reaching a crisis point.
But the court this week dismissed as "anecdotal" the notion that malpractice lawsuits and huge jury awards were the cause of skyrocketing insurance premiums.
Writing for the court, Justice I. Daniel Stewart said lawmakers ignored facts that showed malpractice suits were not the cause of high-cost malpractice insurance. A legislative report said that in the two years before enactment of the law, only 12 malpractice suits were filed, Stewart wrote, and of those claims just one involved a minor and the only judgment was for $10,039. The report also said the number of claims against the state's three largest malpractice carriers had actually decreased.
"Although it is not critical to our holding in this case, we note that there is respected authority for the proposition that a significant cause of dramatically increased malpractice insurance premiums was the cyclical pricing and investment practices of insurance companies," Stewart wrote.
In his decision, Stewart invited lawmakers to revisit the malpractice law and try to better protect minors' rights. "Perhaps the Legislature can provide a means that adequately protects the claims of minors short of keeping all such claims viable until minors reach the age of majority," he wrote.
Williams said he hopes the Utah Medical Association will take up the offer in the next legislative session.
But Christensen said lawmakers will have to do more than just address the issue of allowing minors more latitude in filing malpractice claims. He predicts that with the court finding the rationale behind Utah's malpractice laws flawed, other provisions may not pass constitutional muster - such as the $250,000 cap on damages.
"Anytime you have the highest court saying the basic premise to a law is erroneous, you've got to worry about the other parts of the act," Christensen said.
But Williams contends time has proved that the premise behind Utah's malpractice laws is sound. "The court addressed the situation in 1976 when the risk of a doctor getting sued was 55-to-1. Now one in six doctors have a claim filed against them per year," Williams said. "I think the Legislature correctly anticipated where the trend would take them in Utah."