With a malpractice cap in place, no attorney would be willing to take a medical malpractice case. It's expensive to put one together -- depositions, expert witnesses, paying to have medical records analyzed. All of these expenses are paid up front by the lawyer, and recovered only if the case is won or settled. Being a plaintiff's attorney is being a gambler; you weigh the costs against the benefits (profit) and evaluate your chances of winning. If the odds are good you take the case. Limiting the amount of recovery would eliminate any possibility of making a profit, and could result in a sizable loss. There's no person alive -- lawyer or otherwise -- who would take those odds.
Since he couldn't find an attorney who will take the case, the injured patient is stuck with whatever the insurance company will give them, which is maxed out by the malpractice cap. And the insurance company will be the one who decides what's appropriate. If you require lifetime care because of an auto accident (I have a friend who is a vegetable due to a rear-ender) the amount the company has to pay is limited by law. And forget about lost wages, or the cost of hiring someone to do all the things you used to do around the house, or the fact that you live in constant pain. A law establishing a malpractice cap will also delineate exactly what will be covered. I can tell you for certain that such things as "loss of consortium" (inability to have a sex life) won't be on the list. Nor pain and suffering. And forget about valuing the worth of a housewife. To pay for having someone else to do everything she does has been estimated at almost $100,000 annually. Yeah, an insurance company will go for that!
When I practiced law I would tell clients that an insurance company wants to pay "as little as possible, as late as possible -- if at all." I would also tell them that no matter how good their case was, once the jury went into the jury room to make its decision all bets were off. One trial I saw had a juror who was a long time (i.e., strong personality) secretary for an insurance salesman. The case was about an insurance company who had refused to honor its obligations to a widow, even though she and her husband had made all premium payments. A sweet little old lady plaintiff, clear evidence of wrongdoing on the insurance company. Everyone in the courtroom knew what the jury's verdict would be . . . but guess how it turned out --
Tort reform is just like voter fraud. Something that sounds logical on its face but is really evil once you look into it.
= new reply since forum marked as read