logo
logo
logo
MENU
Categories
Hospitals and Health Systems - Audits and ReimbursementHospitals and Health Systems - Consent and TreatmentHospitals and Health Systems - Corporate and GovernanceHospitals and Health Systems - Corporate ComplianceHospitals and Health Systems - Fraud and AbuseHospitals and Health Systems - Government InvestigationsHospitals and Health Systems - Health RecordsHospitals and Health Systems - HIPAA and HITECHHospitals and Health Systems - Managed CareHospitals and Health Systems - Medical Staff IssuesHospitals and Health Systems - Medical Training ProgramsHospitals and Health Systems - MedicareHospitals and Health Systems - Mergers, Affiliations and Joint VenturesHospitals and Health Systems - Peer ReviewHospitals and Health Systems - Professional Services AgreementsMedical SocietiesPharmaceutical Industry - Agreements with PhysiciansPharmaceutical Industry - Clinical ResearchPharmaceutical Industry - Regulatory CompliancePhysicians and Providers - Audits and ReimbursementPhysicians and Providers - CertificationsPhysicians and Providers - CredentialingPhysicians and Providers - Disciplinary ActionsPhysicians and Providers - Employment AgreementsPhysicians and Providers - Fraud and AbusePhysicians and Providers - Government InvestigationsPhysicians and Providers - HIPAA and PrivacyPhysicians and Providers - ImpairmentPhysicians and Providers - LicensingPhysicians and Providers - LitigationPhysicians and Providers - MedicarePhysicians and Providers - Peer ReviewPhysicians and Providers - Practice AcquisitionsPhysicians and Providers - Practice IssuesPhysicians and Providers - Regulatory CompliancePhysicians and Providers - SupervisionPhysicians and Providers - TrainingUncategorized

Medical Malpractice “Crisis” Back in the News

In January 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court Civil Procedure Rules Committee proposed a rule change to allow medical malpractice plaintiffs to file suit in any county where the defendant regularly did business.  This proposed change would do away with the present rule requiring injured patients to file their claims only in the county where the alleged negligence occurred.

The current rule has been in effect since the Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Errors (MCARE) Act was adopted as law in Pennsylvania in 2002, with accompanying Rules of Civil Procedure.  The MCARE Act was a response to a perceived medical malpractice “crisis,” occurring due to higher malpractice insurance premiums for medical care providers and possible lack of access to medical care in Pennsylvania.

Prior to 2002, when patients were injured by a provider’s negligence, they could sue anywhere that provider did business.  With consolidations of hospitals and medical practices beginning to occur with regularity, this meant, for example, that if medical negligence occurred in Montgomery County at a satellite facility of a large Philadelphia hospital, the injured patient could sue in Philadelphia County.  Why was that important?  Philadelphia jurors are generally viewed as overly generous in their verdicts for plaintiffs; this was true in 2002 and it remains so even now.  So far this year, Philadelphia County has already seen several huge Plaintiff’s verdicts: one for $41 million and another for $12.9 million.  Such verdicts are rare in more conservative counties outside of Philadelphia.

Accordingly, it was believed back in 2002 that medical malpractice verdicts in general would be reduced if claims were limited to the county where the negligence really occurred.  The MCARE Act venue rule change was enacted, and it had the desired effect.  According to state statistics, verdicts in favor of patients dropped dramatically over the next 15 years, resulting in “relief” from the alleged insurance crisis.  During the post-2002 era, however, the frequency of patient safety issues has also grown by leaps and bounds.  Thus, the question of whether the MCARE Act and civil rule changes on venue for medical malpractice cases are still necessary is now on the table.

The public comment period on the proposed rule change was to expire on February 22, 2019.  Prior to that date, however, the State Supreme Court halted the rulemaking process to allow the Pennsylvania State Senate to complete a study on the impact of the medical malpractice venue rules.  Stay tuned for further developments on this front as they occur.

If you have any questions about this post or any related matters, please contact me at fstellato@norris-law.com.

Share
Related Posts
Appealing NPDB Reports
Steering Clear of the OPMC in NY
Pennsylvania Establishes $450 Million Loan Program to Assist Hospitals in the Fight Against COVID-19
Related Posts
Appealing NPDB Reports
Steering Clear of the OPMC in NY
Pennsylvania Establishes $450 Million Loan Program to Assist Hospitals in the Fight Against COVID-19
Share
Join our growing team
We are looking for quality attorneys to help us do more for our clients. At Norris McLaughlin, each attorney has the same opportunity to succeed whether you’re at the beginning of a career or pinnacle of the profession.
Subscribe to our content
Receive timely legal information
delivered to your inbox
Subscribe to our content
Receive timely legal information
delivered to your inbox
© 2022, Norris McLaughlin, P.A., All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising.
Meritas

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume you consent to our cookie policy. Learn more