Helen Haskell’s 15-year-old son was healthy in 2000 when he was admitted to the Medical University of South Carolina Children’s Hospital for elective surgery to correct a chest defect.

But Lewis Blackman never left the hospital. He bled to death as the result of an adverse drug reaction his doctors never caught. His estate won $950,000 from MUSC’s insurer.

Haskell’s is one of the many personal stories lawmakers will consider this week as the debate over far-reaching changes to the state’s civil court system starts in earnest.

DuBose Medlock’s story is another.

A general surgeon, Medlock recently moved his practice from Laurens County to Spartanburg because he couldn’t make enough money to keep up with rising malpractice insurance rates. When he left Laurens County, that insurance was costing him almost a quarter of his net income.

The 12th-generation doctor is one of several physicians who have left rural areas, where many patients are poor and profits are low.

“I don’t see how a doctor in a rural area can stay in practice,” Medlock said.

Medlock and Haskell represent two sides of the debate over whether the state should limit the size of damage awards in medical malpractice cases.

Opponents of change argue the courts offer one of the only checks on negligent doctors and nurses.

Backers argue that a few high verdicts are causing insurance rates for all doctors to skyrocket — to the point that doctors are being forced to abandon high-risk practices such as obstetrics and neurosurgery.

It is one of about a dozen issues lawmakers are considering involving access to the civil court system.

Called “tort reform” by proponents, the issue also concerns whether to restrict where lawsuits can be filed, who can be sued and how long construction companies can be held liable for defects.

For several years, powerful lobbies on all sides have helped hold up bills in the Legislature that would change the system.

But this year, members of both the House and Senate say they expect to take action.

On Tuesday, the Senate will hold a two-hour public hearing on the main issues in contention.

The lawmakers’ decision has the potential to affect everyone in the state — whether they come into contact with the court system or not.

Supporters of restricting civil liability of doctors and companies say South Carolina’s laws are too friendly to plaintiffs.

Many frame it as an economic development issue. In comparison with its neighbors, they say, South Carolina’s laws are hurting their ability to recruit industry.

Others worry that doctors are fleeing certain areas of the state.

“While we sit here and wring our hands month by month about medical malpractice, the story gets worse,” said Senate President Pro Tem Glenn McConnell, R-Charleston.

Opponents of sweeping change say there is little relation between medical malpractice limits and insurance rates.

They argue most of the changes would hurt only the average citizen’s ability to get compensated for injuries.

“They call it the economic development act,” said Michael Gunn, lobbyist for the S.C. Trial Lawyers Association. “They ought to call it the corporate protection act.”

It’s interesting that South Carolinians often bemoan that the state is at the top of lists of things bad for the average citizen, said John Ruoff, a lobbyist for S.C. Fair Share, an advocacy group for consumers and the poor. In the case of civil court remedies, South Carolina offers citizens more protection than most states.

“But when we do good stuff in comparison to other states, we have to do worse,” Ruoff said.

Senators are considering 16 bills that would affect how lawsuits are handled. Last Tuesday, Judiciary Committee members gave themselves two weeks to study the issue, propose amendments and recommend the best of the bills to the full Senate for debate.

House members are considering at least three other bills on the same issues and expect to debate them in February.

Reach Talhelm at (803) 771-8339 or jtalhelm@thestate.com.