Date: 2010-02-24
Speaker: DANIEL E. LUNGREN (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. I thank the gentleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker. as Ive said repeatedlyand perhaps the gentlelady from Ohio who just spoke didnt hearI support the bill. I think she also heardwell. maybe she wasnt here to hear the ranking Republican say he is not going to oppose the bill. so lets be clear about what were talking about here. While I do support this bill and while I do think it could be perfected and while I hope that the motion to recommit will be adopted to actually make it a better bill. I would say. however. this is not the first bill we should have on the floor dealing with the overall issue of health care. The first one should be the one the American people have asked us to look at. and that is reform of the medical malpractice system. The interesting thing is. as the gentleman from Texas pointed out. that in the bill that we have in the Senate and the House. there is reference. as the President of the United States said. to medical malpractice litigation alternatives. That bill does give incentives. financial incentives. Federal moneys from the Federal Government to the States if they will engage in alternatives to the litigation system in areas of medical malpractice. But as the gentleman from Texas pointed out. there is a kicker in there. and it says that if your State dares to in any way put any limitations on attorneys fees or on any part of the recovery in medical malpractice cases. that State will be ineligible for the funds. in other words. you will be punished relative to other States. Now. the gentleman from Texas referred to the landmark legislation we had in California called MICRA. which was adopted in the mid1970s at a time when we had a crisis in medical malpractice premiums. We actually had an exodus of doctors. particularly in the specialties. Neurosurgeons. I remember anesthesiologists. other high specialties with highrisk practices were actually leaving the State of California because of the significant increase in premiums on a yearly basis as a result of the true historical data of what was happening in the courts. I recall at this time. because I actually did some representation in the courts of doctors and hospitals and of even a couple of plaintiff casesbut primarily defense casesthat it was becoming a crisis. So. in California. it came together on a bipartisan basis. and we passed legislation better known as MICRA. In there. we have a limitation on a sliding scale on the amount of money that can go to the attorneys. and its a slightly higher percentage at the lower recoveries. As the recovery gets larger and larger. the percentage of return to the attorneys. percentagewise for that segment of the recovery. is less. While putting no limitation whatsoever on recovery for loss of income and for all medical costs. there was a cap put on noneconomic damages. As one who has been in the courtroom and has seen what happens. that is logical because the one area in which you saw extraordinary amounts of money that really were not truly indicative of approvable damageIm not saying there isnt pain and suffering. but trying to quantify it is extremely difficult. and it proved to be impossible. and it proved to be the area in which you had the outrageous jury verdicts that had the impact of distorting the system. So California adopted both of those. In other words. the bill that has been presented by the President and Democrats in the House and the Senate not only does not really deal with reform of the medical malpractice system. but it takes us back more than 30 years to the position in which we were then when we had not an academic exercise about the possibility of a crisis but a true crisis. We literally had a crisis in medical care in the State of California until we enacted this change. So that is why it is at least as strange to ask and to see why we dont have some litigation reform moving through our Judiciary Committee and through the other committees that may have jurisdiction in the House of Representatives and placed on the floor. Thats why it was very important for the gentleman from Texas to make reference to the California system. because that is one that has worked. and it specifically is the one that is singled out in the legislation that the President supports to be punished. Now. if that is not irony. I dont know what is.