Louisiana 2018 Regular Session

Louisiana House Bill HB586

Introduced
3/2/18  
Introduced
3/2/18  
Refer
3/2/18  
Refer
3/2/18  
Refer
3/12/18  

Caption

Amends the Medical Malpractice Act

Impact

The proposed changes will significantly alter the landscape of medical malpractice litigation in Louisiana. By increasing the recoverable amounts and modifying the requirements for initiating claims, the bill could encourage more patients to come forward with claims regarding substandard medical care. However, the removal of the medical review panel requirement may also lead to a higher volume of claims filed, which could intensify litigation and place additional burdens on healthcare providers. The adjustments aim to balance the rights of patients seeking redress with the financial realities faced by healthcare providers and insurers.

Summary

House Bill 586 seeks to amend the existing Medical Malpractice Act in Louisiana by increasing caps on damages recoverable in malpractice claims. Specifically, the bill proposes raising the maximum amount recoverable per claim from $500,000 to $1,000,000, while also increasing a qualified healthcare provider's potential liability from $100,000 to $250,000. Furthermore, the bill eliminates the requirement that all malpractice claims must be heard by a medical review panel, providing an alternative pathway for claimants to initiate claims via an affidavit from a board-certified doctor, thus potentially streamlining the process for victims of medical malpractice.

Sentiment

The general sentiment surrounding HB 586 largely reflects a division between advocates for patients’ rights and healthcare providers. Proponents argue that increasing damages will better reflect the serious consequences of medical malpractice and provide necessary compensation for those harmed. Conversely, opponents, including some healthcare professionals and insurers, express concern that the increases may lead to higher insurance premiums and potentially drive some practitioners away from the state due to increased liability risks.

Contention

Notable points of contention involve the implications of removing the mandatory medical review panel, which many believe serves as a valuable first step in vetting malpractice claims. Critics argue that this could lead to frivolous lawsuits, while supporters assert it will empower patients by simplifying access to the judicial system. Furthermore, the debate about how to appropriately allocate funds for future medical expenses — whether through direct payments or held in trust — is another critical issue that has generated diverse opinions among stakeholders.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Previously Filed As

LA SB503

Provides relative to medical malpractice and certain limitations of liability and procedures. (8/1/18) (EG NO IMPACT See Note)

LA HB526

Provides for time frames in the Louisiana Medical Malpractice Act

LA HB51

Increases the medical malpractice cap in certain circumstances

LA SB78

Increases medical malpractice cap for certain child brain injuries. (gov sig) (EG NO IMPACT See Note)

LA HB175

Provides for the medical malpractice cap

LA HB102

Provides with respect to medical malpractice claims

LA SB449

Medical Malpractice Changes

LA SB726

Provides with respect to the limitations on recovery in medical malpractice cases. (gov sig)

LA SB246

Provides relative to limitation of liability regarding medical malpractice. (8/1/12)

LA HB63

Medical Malpractice Changes

Similar Bills

NJ A1124

Establishes a Special Medical Malpractice Part in the Superior Court.

CA AB571

Medical malpractice insurance.

NJ A2103

Prohibits insurers from raising medical malpractice liability insurance premiums under certain circumstances.

NJ A984

Prohibits insurers from raising medical malpractice liability insurance premiums under certain circumstances.

IL SB0239

PUNITIVE DAMAGES-LEGAL MALPRAC

IL SB2627

PUNITIVE DAMAGES-LEGAL MALPRAC

IN SB0394

Medical malpractice.

NJ A2075

"Medical Philanthropy Act"; provides physicians who provide uncompensated care with $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in actions alleging medical malpractice.