Opinion ID: 1787098
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Report by Commissioner of Insurance

Text: ś 253. Second, the majority relies on reports by Wisconsin's Commissioner of Insurance. Specifically, the majority argues that the bottom line conclusion in the Commissioner's 2005 report is that the only discernable effect on these areas has been ... [a] reduction in the actuarially determined assessment levels ... over the last seven years. [19] ś 254. In reality, the bottom line of the Commissioner's most recent report does not support the majority's position. Contrary to the majority's assertion, the Commissioner's 2005 report does not draw similar conclusions to the Commissioner's reports issued in prior years. In the 2005 report, Commissioner Jorge Gomez stated: [I]t is important to note that any analysis of the effects of the enactment of Wisconsin act 10 is very difficult due to several factors including: Many of the payments made on claims are a result of a settlement and not a jury trial. The settlement amount takes into consideration the caps that exist; therefore there is no discernable amount that can be attributed to a reduction due to the caps. It is not possible to determine the number of the claims that were not filed due to a limited amount of economic damages in addition to the caps. To conclude ... Wisconsin's malpractice marketplace is stable. Insurance is available and affordable, and patients who are harmed by malpractice occurrences are fully compensated for unlimited economic losses. Tort reform of 1995, along with well regulated primary carriers and a well managed and fully funded Patients Compensation Fund has resulted in the stable medical malpractice environment, and the availability of health care in Wisconsin. [20] ś 255. The Commissioner's new report makes plain the impact of 1995 Act 10. The bottom line conclusions drawn by the Commissioner are as follows: 1995 Act 10 affects settlement amounts; it discourages some claims from being filed; and it has resulted in [a] stable medical malpractice environment, and the availability of health care in Wisconsin. [21] Accordingly, the Commissioner of Insurance, who is in an excellent position to evaluate the effect of 1995 Act 10, disagrees with the majority's conclusions.