California's medical malpractice law, cited as a model by President Bush, has reduced awards in malpractice trials by an average of 30%, according to a study released last week.
But because the landmark law capped attorney fees as well as jury awards, the net recovery by injured patients and their families fell only 15%, the study said. Payments to plaintiffs' lawyers dropped 60%.
The study by Rand Corp., a Santa Monica, Calif., think tank, looked only at how California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act affected payments in cases that went to trial. It did not look at whether the lower awards reduced malpractice insurance premiums for doctors or medical bills for consumers.
The 1975 law capped recoveries for noneconomic damages such as pain and suffering at $250,000. A jury can award more than that, but after the verdict the judge limits the award. The law also capped attorney fees on a sliding scale. The highest percentage that an attorney can recover is 40% of the first $50,000 of any award.
California's law is among the most restrictive in the nation in compensating patients for malpractice. Bush has cited it in prodding Congress to pass medical malpractice legislation sought by doctors and insurance companies but opposed by trial lawyers. Such legislation has passed the House, but Republicans have repeatedly failed to get it through the Senate, most recently in April.
The study examined 257 plaintiff verdicts in California medical malpractice trials from 1995 to 1999. Among its findings:
* Some 58% of cases involving the death of a patient resulted in jury awards that had to be capped, compared with 41% of cases involving injuries. The median award reduction for cases involving death was 49%, compared with 28% for injury cases. The combined average reduction was 30%.
* Injury cases in which jury awards were reduced by $2.5 million or more usually involved newborns and young children with very critical injuries.