It was the doctors vs. the lawyers all over again in a House of Delegates debate Tuesday. The doctors won.
As dozens of less controversial bills skated to easy passage, in a relatively unusual move, the House in a 73-61 vote rejected legislation making a minor change in procedures for malpractice lawsuits. Most Republicans and a similar number of Democrats voted against the measure.
“What this bill does is preserve the status quo” for the last 20 years, said Del. Luiz Simmons, D-Montgomery, a lawyer and floor leader for the bill. He said there had been “a campaign of disinformation” about the bill. “We?re trying to remove a monkey wrench from the law.”
A state Court of Appeals had found that malpractice lawsuits were proceeding without the required report from the medical experts who would describe the appropriate standards of care were not being followed. The bill would have repealed the requirement for the report, which was in addition to the certificate from a qualified expert saying what was the basis of the claim.
“It seems that the lawyers haven?t been following the law,” said Del. Dan Morhaim, D-Baltimore County, a doctor who has testified as a medical expert. “This is basically an opportunity to lowerthe standards. We?re going to make lawsuits easier.”
The requirement for the report “helps to eliminate frivolous lawsuits,” said Del. Ron George, R-Anne Arundel. “This is an epidemic of losing good doctors” because of suits.
“We have no frivolous lawsuits,” insisted Del. Michael Smigiel, R-Cecil, a lawyer and co-sponsor of the bill. Talk of frivolous lawsuits is just “scare tactics,” he said. “This bill just keeps the system the same.”
Judiciary Committee Chairman Joseph Vallario argued strenuously that the law maintains all the rigorous standards for discovery of evidence on both sides.
Arguing for the bill, Simmons said opponents, including doctors and hospitals “want to throw as many obstacles in the way” of a suit.
But Del. Jon Cardin, a lawyer himself but not a member of the Judiciary Committee, said he opposed the bill because “I want to make sure lawyers do their due diligence.”
