.

They are hard to find in Texas with punitive caps at 250k

No caps or not hard to find? There or They're, not trying to be a grammar nazi but that made the response confusing to me.

Certainly consult an attorney on your issue though, I would start with one with a local presence, just be prepared knowing the information below.

Economic damages and medical bills are not capped but limited by your earning power and medical bills. The attorney will likely take 40% of your verdict, so someone who is retired for example is tough for a malpractice attorney to take on because the end game for them is about 100k revenue for which they will have to pay paralegals, associates, and other overhead for a case that may take years to resolve.

Here is the info on caps if you want it, so you can decide if it's worth it:

http://www.painterfirm.com/a/426/How-Texas-medical-malpractice-damages-caps-work#tab-1

Quote:

---

Texas tort reform damages caps apply only to non-economic damages, and they work like this.
An award of non-economic damages against a hospital is capped at $250,000. If there are two or more hospitals involved in the same negligence, then the aggregate cap is $500,000.
When it comes to the negligence of doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and other human beings who are healthcare providers, the total non-economic damages cap is $250,000. That means if a plaintiff sues one doctor or 10 doctors, the total non-economic damages cap is $250,000.
The same caps apply to every plaintiff in a health care liability claim arising from the same facts, care, and treatment. In other words, let's say that one spouse was the patient injured by medical negligence. Both the patient and his or her spouse may be plaintiffs in the medical malpractice for their separate injuries. The patient has physical and non-economic injuries, but the spouse has independent injuries that may include loss of consortium and mental anguish. Despite the fact that there are two plaintiffs, the same caps apply to all of their claims globally.
Juries are not told about tort reform caps. If a jury renders a verdict with a non-economic damages award that exceeds the cap, then the judge will reduce it accordingly.

---

Keeper of The Spirits said:

---

No caps or not hard to find? There or They're, not trying to be a grammar nazi but that made the response confusing to me.

Certainly consult an attorney on your issue though, I would start with one with a local presence, just be prepared knowing the information below.

Economic damages and medical bills are not capped but limited by your earning power and medical bills. The attorney will likely take 40% of your verdict, so someone who is retired for example is tough for a malpractice attorney to take on because the end game for them is about 100k revenue for which they will have to pay paralegals, associates, and other overhead for a case that may take years to resolve.

Here is the info on caps if you want it, so you can decide if it's worth it:

http://www.painterfirm.com/a/426/How-Texas-medical-malpractice-damages-caps-work#tab-1

Quote:

---

Texas tort reform damages caps apply only to non-economic damages, and they work like this.
An award of non-economic damages against a hospital is capped at $250,000. If there are two or more hospitals involved in the same negligence, then the aggregate cap is $500,000.
When it comes to the negligence of doctors, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, pharmacists, and other human beings who are healthcare providers, the total non-economic damages cap is $250,000. That means if a plaintiff sues one doctor or 10 doctors, the total non-economic damages cap is $250,000.
The same caps apply to every plaintiff in a health care liability claim arising from the same facts, care, and treatment. In other words, let's say that one spouse was the patient injured by medical negligence. Both the patient and his or her spouse may be plaintiffs in the medical malpractice for their separate injuries. The patient has physical and non-economic injuries, but the spouse has independent injuries that may include loss of consortium and mental anguish. Despite the fact that there are two plaintiffs, the same caps apply to all of their claims globally.
Juries are not told about tort reform caps. If a jury renders a verdict with a non-economic damages award that exceeds the cap, then the judge will reduce it accordingly.

---

---

There are medmal attorneys in Texas. The cap is only for non-economic damages. There are a lot of economic damage types.

OP, consult with an attorney.

Thank you for the TLDR summary of my post

What area of Texas? I can recommend someone, but who I recommend would depend on which city you are in.

There are still a few attorneys who do medical negligence cases, but the 2003 tort reform laws made 90% of the cases unprofitable. Cases without substantial economic damages are often unviable because the attorney has to put out up to $100,000 in expert witness costs, which isn't justified when there is a $250,000 cap.

I work in health care. Almost every medical malpractice claim is settled well before trial. It is in the economic interests of hospitals and plaintiffs to do so. Hospitals will be quick to write you a check to avoid negative publicity if the claim is valid. The last thing they want is the local news covering a malpractice trial, it affects their business. After tort reform that's really the only leverage a plaintive has.

I am a fan of tort reform because it does prevent a lot of these false claims from coming forward and limits ridiculous jury verdicts, but I think the cap has been set a bit too low. Right now there's not enough punitive effect for hot shot doctors who legitimately have no business doing what they do.

Quote:

---

Hospitals will be quick to write you a check to avoid negative publicity..

---

Maybe in a really horrible case of malpractice only. The vast majority of lawsuits get 0 publicity. The idea that any companies quickly write checks to avoid bad publicity of lawsuits is a myth.

timc08 said:

---

I work in health care. Almost every medical malpractice claim is settled well before trial. It is in the economic interests of hospitals and plaintiffs to do so. Hospitals will be quick to write you a check to avoid negative publicity if the claim is valid. The last thing they want is the local news covering a malpractice trial, it affects their business. After tort reform that's really the only leverage a plaintive has.

I am a fan of tort reform because it does prevent a lot of these false claims from coming forward and limits ridiculous jury verdicts, but I think the cap has been set a bit too low. Right now there's not enough punitive effect for hot shot doctors who legitimately have no business doing what they do.

---

What is it that you would say you do in healthcare?

First, insurance companies handle and direct the claims-defense process, not the hospital.

Second, tell me the last malpractice claim you saw get any publicity in the news or social media.

Lastly, hospitals don't typically quick pay claims because that just generates a buzz that you can claim and get paid regardless of the facts.

The Wonderer said:

---

timc08 said:

---

I work in health care. Almost every medical malpractice claim is settled well before trial. It is in the economic interests of hospitals and plaintiffs to do so. Hospitals will be quick to write you a check to avoid negative publicity if the claim is valid. The last thing they want is the local news covering a malpractice trial, it affects their business. After tort reform that's really the only leverage a plaintive has.

I am a fan of tort reform because it does prevent a lot of these false claims from coming forward and limits ridiculous jury verdicts, but I think the cap has been set a bit too low. Right now there's not enough punitive effect for hot shot doctors who legitimately have no business doing what they do.

---

What is it that you would say you do in healthcare?

First, insurance companies handle and direct the claims-defense process, not the hospital.

Second, tell me the last malpractice claim you saw get any publicity in the news or social media.

Lastly, hospitals don't typically quick pay claims because that just generates a buzz that you can claim and get paid regardless of the facts.

---

I'm an underwriter at a major P/C carrier in a healthcare specialty group, lets get that out of the way first.

This is not accurate for most major hospital systems. The self insured retention's are typically large enough that the hospital selects counsel and handles their own defense up to the retention. The carrier typically won't get involved unless there is something to indicate they could have an exposure.

Further, having personally assisted in the settlement of a six figure medmal claim against a hospital system in Dallas(for a family member) I can guarantee the threat of publicity is a factor in these things. The economic damages were minimal in this instance and they paid well in excess of the tort cap to keep it quiet. The release they had us sign contained at strict NDA with fairly stout liquidated damages penalties should the specifics come out later. Thus, I'm not going into any further specifics here.

BoilerAg10 said:

---

The Wonderer said:

---

timc08 said:

---

I work in health care. Almost every medical malpractice claim is settled well before trial. It is in the economic interests of hospitals and plaintiffs to do so. Hospitals will be quick to write you a check to avoid negative publicity if the claim is valid. The last thing they want is the local news covering a malpractice trial, it affects their business. After tort reform that's really the only leverage a plaintive has.

I am a fan of tort reform because it does prevent a lot of these false claims from coming forward and limits ridiculous jury verdicts, but I think the cap has been set a bit too low. Right now there's not enough punitive effect for hot shot doctors who legitimately have no business doing what they do.

---

What is it that you would say you do in healthcare?

First, insurance companies handle and direct the claims-defense process, not the hospital.

Second, tell me the last malpractice claim you saw get any publicity in the news or social media.

Lastly, hospitals don't typically quick pay claims because that just generates a buzz that you can claim and get paid regardless of the facts.

---

I'm an underwriter at a major P/C carrier in a healthcare specialty group, lets get that out of the way first.

This is not accurate for most major hospital systems. The self insured retention's are typically large enough that the hospital selects counsel and handles their own defense up to the retention. The carrier typically won't get involved unless there is something to indicate they could have an exposure.

Further, having personally assisted in the settlement of a six figure medmal claim against a hospital system in Dallas(for a family member) I can guarantee the threat of publicity is a factor in these things. The economic damages were minimal in this instance and they paid well in excess of the tort cap to keep it quiet. The release they had us sign contained at strict NDA with fairly stout liquidated damages penalties should the specifics come out later. Thus, I'm not going into any further specifics here.

---

If using retention and not deductible, I agree. Large systems go that route, some smaller systems don't. I much prefer retention policies over deductible for the reasons you stated.

SIRs make sense for most large systems so long as they have the admin to manage the program or their broker can assist with that. Nobody likes to post collateral either.

I agree that your prior comment on how defense costs/claim administration are handled is accurate for smaller regional/community/specialty hospitals.

BoilerAg10 said:

---

SIRs make sense for most large systems so long as they have the admin to manage the program or their broker can assist with that. Nobody likes to post collateral either.

I agree that your prior comment on how defense costs/claim administration are handled is accurate for smaller regional/community/specialty hospitals.

---

Which, admittedly, is where the vast amount of my experience is. I've never worked for or had a large system as a client. They are an entirely different beast.

We're coming from two different sides of the coin as our minimum premiums typically push that group out of our appetite.

BoilerAg10 said:

---

We're coming from two different sides of the coin as our minimum premiums typically push that group out of our appetite.

---

Yeah, I've been the middleman in that situation trying to get groups to accept that insurance is not inherently cheap when you get quality insurance, but it's cheaper than a poor outcome due to poor insurance.

Never again.

It's always a struggle to make a value proposition case when the buyer is only concerned with their bottom line. Thankfully, we get to pick and choose who we give terms to and have been able to find some really good organizations to partner with.