The 5th District Court of Appeal has unanimously upheld the constitutionality of California's landmark Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA). It was enacted in 1975 by overwhelming bipartisan support in response to a crisis of runaway medical liability costs and the resulting shortage of health care providers, most predominately in high-risk specialties.
In this case, James Van Buren v. Sian Evans, M.D. and Yosemite Surgery Associates , the trial attorneys argued that MICRA's $250,000 cap on recoverable noneconomic damages deprived Mr. Van Buren of his constitutional rights to a jury trial.
CMA along with its coalition partners filed an amicus brief opposing this attack on MICRA and presented oral arguments before the appellate court. CMA told the court that MICRA's limit on noneconomic damages is a key component of a complex and balanced legislative plan that has ensured the availability of medical care in California.
Under our forward-thinking law, injured patients are entitled to unlimited medical and economic compensation, which often amount to millions of dollars to cover true damages, such as lost wages, medical expenses, and long-term care costs. Physicians support such full compensation of injured patients.
And under MICRA, patients can also recover an additional quarter of a million dollars in noneconomic or “pain and suffering” awards. The law also limits contingency legal fees so that that seriously injured patients get more (and their attorneys get less) of the award.
In its ruling, the appellate court agreed with CMA and rejected each of the trial attorneys' constitutional arguments. As the court noted, the legitimate state interest is to limit medical malpractice insurance costs because without MICRA insurance rates pose “serious problems for the health care system in California, threatening to curtail the availability of medical care in some parts of the state and creating the very real possibility that many doctors would practice without insurance, leaving patients who might be injured by such doctors with the prospect of uncollectible judgments.”