The recent story regarding medical malpractice caps on damages, and attorney fees in those cases (to read that article, CLICK HERE), highlights the downside of the cost saving measures so readily approved by the civilian public who gobble up the propaganda regarding "reform" legislation and the scapegoat we attorneys who will prosecute "frivolous cases" if they don't do something about it.
The Micra law discussed in the article was premised on the same hype that led to sb 899 an "Insurance CRISIS" OMG.
As Doug Heller pointed out in the article the false assumption is that the Micra law worked because med mal cases and costs were down.
This was a fallacy because the premiums did not get lower until proposition 103 was passed in 1988 which instituted regulation of the insurance industry.
If fact, the article points out that in other states with caps the premiums are much higher than in California.
The only factual difference in the other states is the fact that they don't have insurance regulation.
But how is this related to workers compensation?
With the advent of the mpn the treating doctors tend to ignore many treatments available and tend to refuse to look at consequential injuries resulting from the primary injury.
For example it is very common for a person who injured an extremity to develop symptoms on the opposite extremity due to biomechanical effects and overuse.
The applicant will complain and the doctor will refuse to look at it since the ic will refuse to give authorization.
As an aa we could threaten the ptp with malpractice but as the article demonstrates the doctor can feel secure that the threat is idle.
Though I feel for the doctor who became the victim of this law it is hard not to also feel that the "chickens have come home to roost."
Incidentally, we talk about various arguments over the validity of the claim that sb899 is actually a reform of wc.
There is a slight misconception here.
The word "reform" in the context of law is generally understood to mean that the law will ethically improve the system.
However, the word reform also means to reshape. If I have a clump of clay in the shape of a cube and I make it into a sphere i have "reformed" it.
There is no moral or ethical intent when viewed from this point of view.
Thus it is fair to say that sb899 did in fact reform workers compensation.
It certainly took one form of justice and benefits and made it completely different but not necessarily morally or ethically better.
I think the same can be said of medical malpractice laws, welfare reform tort reform and so on.
So the next time you hear a politician talking about reforming something don't jump to the conclusion that they intend to make it better for the general public. In fact in most cases it merely means they are going to change it and in most cases to benefit the big money interests.
Anyway if you have read my early rants you already know that I felt that the implementation of prop 103 was the answer to the wc CRISIS, and not the reform as implemented by sb899. I still haven't changed my mind.
Recently the webmaster posted an article indicating that the insurance industry is seeking a small increase in premiums. Mark my words, it won't be long before were right back where we started from. Employers complaining about the high cost of WC insurance and the need for "REFORM". Hopefully, next time, as the rock song says "we won't be fooled again."
If prop 103 and its amazing story of passage interests you please read my previous rants.
- J. Geller
January 7, 2008
