Negligent Tort "Reform"

From his wheelchair, Frank Cornelius explains ("Crushed by My Own Reforms," Law Bulletin, Oct. 10) the folly of his lobbying in Indiana on behalf of the insurance industry, pushing for "reforms" of the civil justice system with the unfounded promise of lower costs yet better health care. In 1975, Indiana enacted wholesale reforms, in part, due to his efforts.

And now, disabled as a result of a botched routine medical procedure, Mr. Cornelius so eloquently argues the realities of tort "reform" in his state.

For him, that reality means being confined to a wheelchair and needing a respirator to breathe, unable to work ever again. It means constant pain. It means a failing marriage. It means, for a 49-year-old man, less than two years to live. And it means for his family of seven trying to get by on $500,00 in damages, thanks to caps.

And, somehow, he says, it would all have been worth it if Indiana enjoyed the promises tort reform held out -- lower health care costs.

It has not.

In fact, the American Hospital Association reported that the average hospital expenses per in-patient day are less in Chicago than Indianapolis. Illinois does not have caps on damages, although some lawmakers are turning political cartwheels here to push for them in the state legislature. And for what?

In New York, a tort "reform" package was approved in 1985 under the guise of lowering health care costs, but no appreciable moderation of medical charges has been detected since then. Amid all the rhetoric, though, the problem of medical injury itself has been lost in the din. A recent Harvard University study in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed medical negligence in New York hospitals has reached epidemic proportions. Often these medical incidents involved preventable injuries.On its heels came a finding by the consumer group Public Citizen that hospitals disciplined doctors just 750 times in a year, despite some 100,000 incidents of negligent medical care each year.

This is deplorable.

And the proponents of tort "reform" are only trying to pave the way for even less accountability. Only the actual wrongdoers benefit from such proposed changes at the consumer's expense. The issue is having a rational tort system for personal injury that meets the victim's needs while encouraging optimum health care. How many wheelchair-ridden Frank Corneliuses will it take to convince the health care industry and legislators that limits on malpractice awards are not the answer?

Even one was too many.