Policy Evaluation: Tort Reform

The Texas Tribune has a story on the difficulties a double amputee is having suing the hospital that seems to be responsible for the amputations. As a result of tort reform - passed in 2003 - damages were capped, which means that fewer lawyers are willing to represents clients, and rules regarding expert reports place an increased burden on plaintiffs and make them more likely to have to pick up the legal bills of those they sue (like potentially negligent hospitals).

The story suggests that a constitutional challenge might be on the way: 

Spears said the laws obstructed her ability to find a malpractice lawyer and forced a judge to order her to pay thousands of dollars to cover some defendants’ legal bills. Her lawyers plan to challenge the constitutionality of the laws.

“How can that law be?” Spears asked. “Maybe the law was too loose before, but they went way too far the other way.”

Tort reform proponents say that such restrictions are the only way to curb frivolous lawsuits against health care providers, and that they have drawn more medical professionals to a state with exploding population growth.

“Our purpose had never been to have a procedural hurdle,” said Mike Hull, a lawyer for the pro-tort-reform Texas Alliance for Patient Access. “It had been to have the plaintiffs really get the case reviewed.”

But did the manner in which the state of Texas design tort reform in fact place barriers on the ability of plaintiffs to use the courts? Was the law intended to intimindate people from using the courts to address potential negligence by large organizations that have more lawyers and more money to spend?