A recent Free Press editorial suggested that we take a closer look at the federal government imposing legal reforms like damage caps in medical malpractice cases (“Lawsuit Limits are Worth Looking At”, Oct. 15, 2009). Fair enough; here is one lawyer’s view.

The good news is that Minnesota is a model for the entire nation in this area of the law (often referred to as “med mal”). According to the Minnesota Supreme Court statistics, malpractice lawsuit filings went down 45 percent in our state from 1997 to 2008. In fact, in 2007 out of over 1.9 million cases filed in Minnesota courts, only 114 were malpractice suits.

Why so few cases? First of all, we have excellent physicians, clinics, and hospitals. Medical malpractice still happens, but it is extremely rare. State lawmakers have also enacted a statutory “affidavit rule,” which protects doctors by requiring plaintiff attorneys to certify that they have sound medical support before filing any malpractice lawsuit. Minnesota juries are typically reasonable, and judges here have the power to reduce any verdicts deemed excessive.

Not surprisingly, therefore, Minnesota doctors pay only a fraction of what other doctors pay for malpractice insurance. According to an Oct. 2008 report by the Medical Liability Monitor, Minnesota ranks 50th among states in average malpractice insurance premiums. That’s right — 50th (Florida doctors paid the most, with annual liability premiums over 10 times what Minnesota doctors paid in 2008). Not much room for savings here, as you can see.

Besides, damage caps are penny-wise and pound foolish. The recent Congressional Budget Office report cited by the Free Press estimated that the potential savings of damage caps would only be 0.5 percent – one half penny per dollar of our health care costs. This conclusion itself was actually a blow to the loudest of the damage cap supporters, including insurance companies, who had originally claimed potential savings of up to $500 billion over 10 years.

Most importantly, there may be no savings at all. A study cited in that same CBO report concluded “malpractice liability leads to modest reductions in patient mortality; the value of these more than likely exceeds the cost impact (Lakdawalla and Seabury, 2009). Translation: It may actually cost us lives, and money, to enact damage caps. The Anchorage Daily News voiced similar concerns, saying “the threat of medical malpractice lawsuits cuts down on health spending in one important way. It puts pressure on medical professionals to avoid common medical errors.”

Adding insult to injury, the more that patients have been damaged, the more caps penalize them. This is no way to look for health care savings. Instead, take a glance at health care CEO salaries like that of William McGuire, the former boss of Minnetonka-based United Health Care, who was paid $124.8 million for his work in 2006. That amount alone would provide about a year’s medical insurance for 34,000 Minnesotans.

Insurance companies spend millions of dollars lobbying for reforms like damage caps; many lawyers lobby hard against them. Our health care reform debate gives everybody another chance to take a look. From my viewpoint, we don’t need this type of change.



Nick A. Frentz is a practicing attorney in Mankato with Frentz and Frentz Law Offices. He works exclusively in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death on behalf of individuals and families. He is currently serving as the chair of the Legislative Committee of the Minnesota Association for Justice.