Nevada Bill Improved Patient Protection but AB 404 Died in Session
This year, with the Nevada Legislature in session, we have seen many new bills being heard and passed, with proponents and opponents arguing the possible benefits and risks. One of these bills was AB404, which proposed an increase to cap on damages for pain and suffering or non-economic damages from the current $350,000 to $2.5 million for medical malpractice lawsuits. It would have also increased the statute of limitations from 1–3 years to 2–4 years.[1]
Unfortunately for those victims of medical malpractice, the bill was not passed by the Assembly and died at the end of the legislative session. Read on to learn more about the bill as this won’t be the last time the Assembly hears arguments regarding the cap.
The bill was sponsored by the Assembly Judiciary Committee, and proponents of the bill included many Nevada Trial attorneys who believe that this change would finally make the cost of a medical malpractice lawsuit worthwhile enough to take on. The Nevada Justice Association, an organization composed of trial attorneys throughout the state, also supported this bill — having previously advocated to eliminate the pain and suffering cap completely. Opponents of the bill included the medical community who argued the bill would increase operation costs in the state, resulting in business closures or relocations.
AB404 had been in the works for quite some time, with its predecessor bill AB209, which eliminated the cap for non-economic damages completely. However, it died after it did not receive a work session. Both AB404 and AB209 were responses to the 2004 referendum that was created in response to what many physicians described as a period where it was too expensive for physicians to practice in Nevada. The referendum resulted in a series of protections being put into place, including the current cap of $350,000. [2]
If AB404 had passed, healthcare providers worried that Nevada could once again become too expensive to practice medicine. Doctor Ati Hakimi, a family medicine physician in Las Vegas communicated her concerns and said her medical malpractice insurer said her policy would triple from $10,000 annually to $30,000 if it were to pass. Hakimi called this change unsustainable to physicians, especially those running small practices and specialists, who would have a harder time covering these cost increases. Your Nevada Doctors, a group lobbying against the bill, noted that Nevada ranks fourth-seventh nationally for doctors per 100,000 people, forty-eighth for access to primary care physicians, and fiftieth for surgeons [3]
Attorneys who work in medical malpractice said the bill was long overdue, and believed the bill could help them serve suffering patients better. Joseph Lee Benson II, a partner at Nevada law firm Benson & Bingham Accident Injury Lawyers, LLC, estimated that seventy percent of the calls at his firm were regarding medical malpractice cases. However, due to the current cap, many attorneys across the state must turn away clients, and the complexity of these cases mean that attorneys will likely lose money on them. Mr. Benson noted that this bill enables “…At least some attorneys to want to do this type of law again. Because it has been very restrictive from a business standpoint on whether we can take these cases.”
Medical malpractice cases tend to be expensive, as well as complex, and often require extensive reviews of medical records with at least one to three experts before it can be decided if a client has a viable case. This can cost between $10,000 to $30,000 and does not guarantee that a case exists.
Attorneys argue that the cap is unjust, and regardless of the type of malpractice that occurs, the cap limits the compensation someone can receive for the pain or suffering they or their loved one experiences. Mr. Benson stated that “I wish there was no cap at all. I mean, you can kill someone, you can cut the wrong leg off, and we’re still stuck with $200,000 to $350,000, for noneconomic damages. It’s really unjust”.
Mr. Benson isn’t the only trial attorney to share these sentiments, as Joel Selik, another professional malpractice trial attorney shared similar insights. Mr. Selik also emphasized the importance of keeping negligent doctors accountable for their actions, and agreed that AB404 would not push out physicians, the primary argument against the bill. He also stated that the current statute of limitations of one year is too short considering often times during that time family members and patients are too concerned with receiving the medical care that they have no time to hire an attorney, and many do not realize they have a malpractice case until after the one-year deadline.
Despite the cost and complexity for attorneys to represent clients in medical malpractice suits, attorneys like Mr. Benson continue to take on these cases in hopes that victims of medical malpractice can receive some justice. And as mentioned, this won’t’ be the last time we see similar type bills in the Nevada Assembly — too many people are affected by medical malpractice and unfortunately, the ends don’t typically justify the means for taking such cases to court for Nevada personal injury practitioners.
Click on the second citation from news3lv.com to hear Mr. Joseph Benson discuss his views on the bill.
[3] https://yournevadadoctors.com/
Image Credit: Nick Youngson Photography
Originally published at https://www.bensonbingham.com on May 15, 2023.
