Limits on court awards past due in Arkansas
During the 2017 session, the Arkansas state legislature voted to have tort reform on the 2018 ballot. Arkansas is far behind addressing this problem.
Every state surrounding Arkansas has enacted legislation to protect their medical community and others from frivolous lawsuits and unwarranted jury awards. Years ago, I lived in Texas when tort reform was enacted. A few years later, as a member of the Oklahoma State Chamber of Commerce, my brother helped pass tort reform.
Many voters don’t understand or are misinformed on what Issue 1 will do — and won’t do. The proposal can be viewed on line. Nothing in the language restricts compensation for a person sorely injured through another party’s negligence—medical costs, lost wages, lifetime care, compensation for whatever is required to meet their needs.
There are four proposals in Issue 1, and it’s undoubtedly the first of those which is fueling the propaganda and highly misleading commercials — contingency fees, which trial lawyers can claim from a court-ordered award would be limited to one-third of the award, with penalties for claiming a larger amount.
The second section directs the Legislature to define the terms “non-economic damages” and “punitive damages” and does limit the amount that can be granted in those types of awards, including if the result is death. Under our legal system, the death of a person due to gross negligence by a nursing home, large corporation or whomever, would be prosecuted in the courts under criminal law.
Knowing who supports the measure and those who oppose it reveals a large portion of supporters are Arkansas-based groups related to our medical community—including hospitals as well as physicians—because of the threat and uncontrolled burden they all bear, particularly the cost of malpractice insurance. A significant number of doctors no longer deliver babies for that reason. On the other hand, many of those opposed are organizations most of us have never heard of.
In the Oct. 8 edition of this paper on the editorial page were pro and con pieces about Issue 1, which hopefully everyone read. We all appreciate our forefathers securing our liberties from King George III, but a substantive case for a “no” vote was lacking. The supporting piece presented a full scope of the need for this legislation: Arkansas has a shortage of doctors, because the threat of frivolous lawsuits and the exorbitant cost of malpractice insurance stymies the recruitment of young doctors; large companies will not come in, because of the risk of unwarranted lawsuits — trial lawyers love getting large companies in their sights. Also don’t be mislead that juries can be depended on to make sensible decisions. Proposals three and four deal with other legislative issues.
Also, term limits for our legislators should not be shortened. Considerable time is required to “learn the ropes” and become productive, and short-term limits can result in too many inexperienced members coming in at the same time.
BARBARA FOREMAN
Siloam Springs