S.C. battles tort suits

If the South Carolina House has anything to say about it, tort reform is coming to the state.

ADVERTISEMENT

Have a thought? Go to the Forums or Chat.

Subscribe  E-mail this story  Write a letter to the Editor  Printer-friendly version  Get news on your PDA  Get e-mail headlines

By a convincing 79-32 margin, the lower chamber recently voted to allow judges who find a lawsuit to be frivolous to charge the plaintiffs and their lawyers for court costs and other expenses. This isn't as good as "loser pays," but it's a start.

Members also called for putting a $2 million cap on non-economic damages, such as pain and suffering, or economic distress.

Finally, the bill limits the venue where a lawsuit can be filed so plaintiffs can't file where they'll have the best chance of winning the biggest pot of money.

Credit for the measure's success so far, which seems to have set the lawyers' lobby back on its heels, goes to a group called South Carolina First - made up of doctors, insurers and business people concerned that the litigation craze is discouraging economic development and quality health care in the state.

Opponents argued that the legislation shuts the door of the legal system on ordinary citizens and benefits wrongdoers. And they questioned why juries can decide on death penalties and prison sentences, but not on the amount of damages in a civil case.

The answer is because it's appropriate for juries to give criminals tough sentences, but doctors, business people and corporations aren't criminals - they should be held accountable for negligence or carelessness, but not to the extent of being run out of business, especially when that deprives society of an important service.

This was the issue when the House not only OK'd the curb on frivolous lawsuits but also on medical malpractice suits. The medical malpractice bill sets a $300,000 cap on awards for pain and suffering, and establishes a particular procedure to follow before a litigant can file a lawsuit.

Reformers' hope is that the measure will cut back on malpractice insurance rates and thus stem the flow of health-care professionals out of the state, particularly the specialties of obstetrics, emergency care and surgery.

The problem for lawyers is that when they're pitted against doctors and economic developers in the public arena, they lose. Health care and the state's precarious economy are clearly more important to the public, and lawmakers, than big awards in civil suits. And that's the way it should be.

The judicial system should not be a lottery for some plaintiffs and lawyers to get filthy rich on while sick people lose out on good medical care and families have to go without breadwinners.

Let's hope the House bills have clear sailing through the Senate and to the governor's desk.

--From the Saturday, January 31, 2004 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle