|
Medical malpractice laws: How Indiana compares to California
Generally, California’s medical malpractice act, called MICRA, is considered to be a model for the nation. The AMA has used it to draft model federal medical malpractice legislation.
Often, the ISMA receives questions about California’s law
and how it compares to Indiana’s.
Both states passed their acts in 1975, becoming the first two states in the country to do so. Both Indiana and California have malpractice damages caps, putting them in an elite — and often envied — category. However, the caps are different.
California caps non-economic damages (e.g., pain and suffering) at $250,000 but does not cap total damages. The non-economic cap is considered by many to be the most desirable feature in any tort reform legislation. However, Indiana does not cap non-economic damages alone, but instead caps total damages at $1,250,000.
Both states also cap attorney fees, albeit a little differently. Indiana’s act does not limit attorney fees on the first $250,000 of recovery, but case law limits them to a “reasonable” amount. The act then limits attorney fees to 15 percent of any recovery from the Patient’s Compensation Fund (amounts between $250,000 and $1,250,000).
California tiers fees based on the recovery: 40 percent of the first $50,000; 33 1/3 percent of the next $50,000; 25 percent of the next $500,000; and 15 percent of amounts exceeding $600,000.
California does not have a Patient’s Compensation Fund or a medical review panel process. Patients in Indiana must generally file a claim for malpractice within two years from the date of the injury, whereas California gives patients three years.
The differences between Indiana’s and California’s acts, most notably the types of caps on damages, do not appear to create significant disparities between Indiana and California malpractice insurance rates.
According to its recent annual rate survey issue, the Medical Liability Monitor reports comparable rates in Indiana and California for physicians practicing in internal medicine, general surgery and obstetrics/gynecology.
Given the similarities in the effectiveness of California’s and Indiana’s malpractice statutes, it is likely California’s act is typically referred to as the model legislation because it is more difficult to pass legislation like Indiana’s, which caps total damages.
(See cover story for more comparisons.)
|
