California Medical Malpractice Law Blog

The New England Journal of Medicine recently reported that a Harvard study has found that the legal system successfully weeds out claims against health care professionals that have no merit. This comes as a surprise to the American Medical Association, and other medical groups and insurance companies, who have long contended that the laws regarding the liability of health care professionals are too liberal and that tort reform is necessary.

The study was conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, found that 90% of all claims against health care professionals involved a severe injury; 26% of those resulted in death and 80% in disability. The study reported that 63% of the injuries were due to the negligence of a medical professional and that the overwhelming majority of those claims thought to be without merit did not result in compensation.

This study, which some believe is another nail in the coffin of tort reform, substantiates what plaintiff and defense lawyers have known for a long time; that tort reform is a response to a campaign of misinformation orchestrated by insurance companies that gives preference to insurance company profits over the rights of health care professionals to affordable insurance and the rights of those they inadvertently injure.

California enacted the Medical Compensation Reform Act (MIRCA) in 1975 that, among other things, limited pain and suffering awards against health care providers to $250,000. The damage limitations of MICRA will likely not apply to those who have been injured as a result of Kaiser’s alleged failure to properly administrate their kidney transplant service.

California Civil Code § 3428 states that a health care service plan or managed care entity, such as Kaiser, has a duty of ordinary care to “arrange for the provision of medically necessary health care service to its subscribers and enrollees…” California Civil Code § 3428 (j) states that damages recoverable for a violation of this statute are not limited by MICRA.

Practically speaking, this means that for those who lost family members, or were otherwise seriously injured, as a consequence of Kaiser’s alleged misadministration of their transplant service, their pain and suffering damages will truly reflect their actual losses and not be limited by the draconian measures of MICRA.

In response to patient protests, California HMO regulators announced on Wednesday, May 10, 2006 that they will oversee Kaiser Permanente’s kidney transplant unit in San Francisco in an effort reduce undue delays in facilitating kidney transplants. Presently more than 2,000 Northern California Kaiser patients are waiting for kidney transplants. Kaiser patients have reported considerable delays in obtaining kidneys; delays which are allegedly caused by lost paperwork, poor communication with staff members and problems transferring their seniority from other institutions. At a recent news conference, Cindy Ehnes, the director of the state Department of Managed Health Care referred to a statistic that showed that more than twice as many patients on Kaiser’s transplant waiting list had died than had received new organs.

It is presently unknown if patients have died, or were seriously injured, as a result of these alleged administrative problems at Kaiser. Those who were injured, and possibly their families, may have statutory rights under the laws of the state of California and should consider seeking legal advice.