Personal Injury Law

The Conservative Case Against Medical Malpractice "Reform"

By Steven M. Levin and John J. Perconti

The 7th Amendment Advocate recently explained an overlooked concept in the debate about medical malpractice ?reform.? Self-defined ?conservatives? are usually the ones calling the loudest for rule changes that would cut away at victim?s right to a jury trial. These same individuals often extol the virtue of limited government, promoting policy concepts that keep decision-making power with states and individuals.

Baffling is how these same conservatives fail to recognize the hypocrisy of advocating for medical malpractice ?reform? that does nothing more than create blanket rules at the federal life at the expense of states and individual citizens.

As we have repeatedly emphasized on this blog, the 7th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is clear in enshrining the unfettered guarantee of a jury trial in essentially all civil trials. It would be logical for all those who respect the freedoms guaranteed by our Founders to fight against any erosion of those freedoms.

The inconsistent principles advocated by these ?reformers? are disturbing, suggesting ulterior motives are behind the claims. The situation is all the more unfortunate because the practical consequences of most medical malpractice legislation is little more than a money grab by the big medical lobby and insurance interests. For example, the current proposal known as H.R. 5 would do nothing to limit medical malpractice; it would impose arbitrary damage awards, change liability rules, and make it much more difficult for injured victims to seek redress from those who harm them carelessly.

Full post as published by Illinois Medical Malpractice Blog on January 31, 2011 (boomark / email).