The potential implications of HB 850 revolve around its effect on the medical malpractice litigation landscape in the state. By establishing a system where litigation is paused pending a medical review panel decision, the bill seeks to alleviate some of the burdens on the court system by ensuring that matters are evaluated before they go to trial. This change could lead to a more efficient resolution of claims and possibly decrease the volume of frivolous lawsuits, promoting a more orderly approach to handling medical malpractice disputes.
Summary
House Bill 850, sponsored by Representative Frieman, focuses on amendments related to medical malpractice claims in Louisiana. The bill proposes to establish clearer definitions concerning 'proof of financial responsibility' and introduces provisions for the operation of medical review panels. It stipulates that a court must stay all proceedings in a civil lawsuit while a medical review panel is pending for the same alleged injuries to a patient, which aims to streamline the legal process and reduce unnecessary litigation costs.
Sentiment
The general sentiment surrounding HB 850 appears to be cautiously supportive among those who see its potential to improve the functionality of malpractice claims. Proponents argue that it serves the interests of both patients and healthcare providers by ensuring a rigorous review process before claims are fully litigated. However, some stakeholders may express concerns around the implementation of such panels and fear that it could delay justice for patients seeking redress for legitimate grievances.
Contention
Notable points of contention include concerns from legal experts regarding the balance of power between the medical review panels and the judicial system. Critics may voice apprehensions that the bill could lead to extensive delays in providing justice for victims of malpractice, particularly if the medical review process is lengthy. Additionally, as the bill applies only prospectively, there are questions about how it will affect cases already underway and whether existing claims should also benefit from the proposed changes.
Provides exclusion from coverage for medical malpractice by doctor practicing outside his specialty or hospital privileges. (8/1/16) (EG NO IMPACT See Note)