Tort Reform in Oregon
Tort reform is a hot topic in virtually every state in the country. Tort reform involves efforts by doctors, HMOs, and insurance companies to keep their profits and premiums in place. Instead of addressing the real issue; professional negligence, The Oregon Medical Association has devoted much of its efforts to limiting the resources available to injured patients. So has the Oregon Academy of Family Physicians. The following analogy is helpful to understand the tortured logic being applied by these organizations: 'let's lower auto insurance premiums by stopping lawsuits against drunk drivers, not by preventing drunk driving.' These organizations have even asked doctors to obtain a Physician Action Kit from the American Medical Association that includes office posters and patient brochures to help mobilize physicians and patients in the fight to help pass medical liability reform. If these organizations are successful, the following scenario is likely to occur in Oregon with alarming regularity.
Injured patients in Oregon will not only be denied full compensation for their injuries, but in most cases will not be able to find attorneys to represent them. This is exactly what has occurred in California and other states across the country, where "damages caps" have driven most competent plaintiff's lawyers out of the business.
So far, the citizens have not been swayed by the tactics of the Oregon medical profession and its insurance companies. In the nation's first vote-by-mail primary, completed on May 16, Oregon voters overwhelmingly rejected by a 3-to-1 margin a constitutional amendment that would have allowed state lawmakers to place limits on how much money that could be awarded in any civil action, including personal-injury lawsuits. This is a victory of incalculable significance for the people and the integrity of the civil justice system that has served Americans so well throughout our history. It was an overwhelming defeat for corporate welfare in the guise of "tort reform." In an all-mail-ballot turnout estimated at 47 percent -- the highest since the 1992 primary, 75 percent of voters said no to Measure 81, a proposal that would have amended the state constitution to limit the power of citizen juries to award damages in civil cases. The Oregon Legislature had earlier placed the "tort reform" Measure 81 on the ballot in response to the Oregon Supreme Court's ruling that the constitutional right to a jury trial is inviolate and that, therefore, the state's 12-year-old cap of $500,000 for non-economic damages was unconstitutional.
The battle, however, is certainly not over and the Law Offices of Miller & Wagner will continue to keep you updated on the current status of Tort Reform in Oregon. Please contact us today for further information.
