Lawyers, docs at odds over malpractice bill

CARSON CITY — Doctors strongly opposed a bill that would dramatically increase medical malpractice award caps during testimony Tuesday in Carson City.

Assembly Bill 404, presented by attorney and former Assemblyman Justin Watkins, would increase the amount a victim of medical malpractice can be awarded for noneconomic damages from the current $350,000 up to $2.5 million. That amount would be adjusted annually based on the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index starting on Jan. 1, 2025.

Watkins, who represents the Nevada Justice Association, said the bill is a “modernization” of a 20 year old law approved by voters on the 2004 ballot that limited noneconomic damages to $350,000 without any exceptions.

“We believe that an increase of $350,000 to $2.5 million is reasonable and is line with the changes throughout the country,” Watkins said.

Watkins said other states that have increased their caps on civil action related to medical malpractice, including California, Iowa, New Mexico and Nebraska.

The bill would also revise the amount of time injured parties have to bring a lawsuit. A plaintiff would have four years after the date of the injury or two years after the injured person discovered the injury to bring legal action. It would also apply retroactively to an injury that occurred prior to Oct. 1, 2023, even if the statute of limitations in effect at the time of injury has expired.

The proposed legislation would also remove the contingent fee cap an attorney representing an injured party can collect, repeal the $50,000 limit a physician or hospital can be held liable for in certain situations and would remove a requirement for each defendant to be held independently liable for the damages.

Long history

The issue came to the forefront in the early 2000s when several physicians left the state or limited their practices after a dominant malpractice insurance carrier left Nevada. Fears of losing doctors in a state already stressed for medical care led to limits on malpractice awards, a move that some attorneys say left patients who suffered injuries due to actual malpractice unable to find a lawyer to represent them.

On Tuesday, lawmakers grilled Watkins on the increased cap. Assemblywoman Alexis Hansen, R-Sparks, raised concerns about whether this bill would create a “chilling effect” on smaller practitioners, like rural critical access hospitals. Others, such as Assemblywoman Gallant, R-Las Vegas, questioned why the cap was being raised higher than other states.

And those concerns were echoed by several groups and doctors who testified in opposition, saying the bill could make health care even harder to access because of increased costs and flight of physicians from the state as a result of the legislation.

“I argued that removing the cap will have a negative impact on the physician supply in Nevada, which is already unacceptably low,” said University of Nevada, Reno School of Medicine Dean Paul Hauptman, referring to a similar malpractice bill that failed to meet an April deadline. “The threat of increased malpractice damages will not change physician behavior for the good, rather health care costs may increase as defensive medicine is practiced.”

Hauptman was joined in opposition to the bill by several physicians, the Nevada Hospital Association, the Reno and Sparks Chamber of Commerce and Nevada Independent Insurance Agents.

But Dylan Shaver, representing victims’ advocacy group Empower Nevadans Now, urged lawmakers to consider victims.

“We would like the committee respectfully to divorce this conversation talking about doctors and lawyers and focus on the victims,” he said.

Nevada Women’s Lobby and Battle Born Progress also spoke in support of the bill.

Contact Taylor R. Avery at TAvery@reviewjournal.com. Follow @travery98 on Twitter.