My mother asked me what my opinion was on Florida State Constitutional Amendment 3. I was sad, and a little embarrassed to admit that I was not familiar with the amendments that were on the upcoming ballot; I have been focusing entirely on the Presidential election.

I cannot sit and read about *all* the proposed amendments in one evening over a bottle of wine. After all, Daniel has volleyball games tomorrow and I don't want to sleep through them. :) Besides, I drank most of this bottle at dinner and then later watching TV in bed with Wendy. There's only enough left for one amendment. :)

...but I did look into Amendment 3 so I could talk to my mother about it with at least *half* a clue in place. Right?

Both sides of the issue have compelling emotional arguments, but it is all too easy to get lost in the tangential; that's the purpose of the propaganda, after all.

Let's start our education off by going to the source and reading about what will be printed directly on the ballot:

Ballot Summary: Proposes to amend the State Constitution to provide that an injured claimant who enters into a contingency fee agreement with an attorney in a claim for medical liability is entitled to no less than 70% of the first $250,000.00 in all damages received by the claimant, and 90% of damages in excess of $250,000.00, exclusive of reasonable and customary costs and regardless of the number of defendants. This amendment is intended to be self-executing.

That sounds reasonable to me, but there is both support and opposition for this bill; I'm sure that it is not as cut and dry as it seems.

The amendment is sponsored by a Political Committee called "Citizens for a Fair Share".

It is opposed by Florida's trial lawyers, who have a website of their own.

It seems that the bulk of the argument FOR is that it will 1) reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits by ensuring that the trial lawyers will get little money for cases that yield awards of less than a half million dollars. 2) ensure that the lion's share of the award in any case goes to the plaintiff and not their lawyer.

The bulk of the argument AGAINST the amendment seems to be that if the lawyers don't make any money, then people will go unrepresented and medical costs will skyrocket. They say that it will not prevent frivolous law suits, nor will it prevent bad doctors from practicing bad medicine. They make statements like "Amendment 3 will make it nearly impossible to punish irresponsible and incompetent doctors." and "Over half of the malpractice in Florida is committed by only 6% of the doctors". There is a large number of case studies that will make your heart wrench if you read them. I almost cried when I read about the Bliss Family and how a baby with a simple cold could wind up dead in the ER.

But after rubbing my eyes and getting my heart under control... would Amendment 3 have any effect on the Bliss family?

I think that this opinion letter (Alan Jay Yesner, M.D.) I read in the Sun Sentinel put it best:

This Amendment 3 speaks to one issue and one issue only. The issue is contingency fees, that is, how much money a trial lawyer will receive in a medical liability case. This amendment has nothing to do with medical errors and nothing to do with how much money an injured party can be awarded by a judge or jury. The literature circulating our mail system and the rhetoric on radio and television ads avoid the issue at hand. These advertisements would make a person believe that a vote for this amendment would "make Florida's health care system even less accountable."

This amendment has nothing to do with accountability. However, it is not in the best interest of the trial lawyers' pocket to make that argument. The trial lawyers would never admit that a vote for this amendment gives them less money and you more money. At the present time, a trial lawyer gets 30 percent to 40 percent of an award in a medical malpractice case.

I think mom and I have a lot to talk about.

Posted by Michael at October 23, 2004 12:37 AM