State and Federal Statutes for Medical Malpractice

Medical malpractice legislation is frequently revised from year-to-year, including federal and state statutes, so it is important to speak with an attorney to understand how the current laws will apply in your medical malpractice case.

Federal Statutes - 2005

Medical liability reform was made a centerpiece of the 2004 Presidential election, as well as many Congressional races. The proposed federal legislation, introduced in 2005 and continuing in 2006, would dismantle state judicial authority and preempt all existing state statutes governing medical malpractice lawsuits with the following:

• Limits on non-economic (pain and suffering) damages at $250,000
• A 3-year statute of limitations to initiate lawsuits, or one year from discovery
• Statute of limitations for children until age 8
• Limits on attorneys fees in settlement or judgment
• Collateral source benefits may be introduced into evidence in court
• Periodic payments ordered for future damages exceeding $50,000
• Standard guidelines for awarding punitive damages and limitations on the amount awarded
• Prohibitions on instructing a jury about any limitations to damage awards
• Punitive damages may not be awarded against the manufacturer or distributor of a medical product approved by the Food and Drug Administration
• A specific statement that the provisions would preempt all state laws not in conformance with the standards presented

Federal Statutes - 2006

President Bush reiterated a call for Congressional action on medical liability reform in his 2006 State of the Union address. The U.S. House has not considered any new legislation beyond the bills it passed in 2005. The U.S. Senate enacted a "Health Care Week" at the beginning of May 2006, which included consideration of various federal legislation bills.

Courts take different views on when the statute of limitations begins to run in medical malpractice cases. To some extent, the difference in these views is a reflection of the wording in the statutes. The difference also reflects the courts' views on the relative merit of protecting injured parties versus protecting medical providers by enabling them to defend themselves when records are still in existence and recollections are still fresh.