Call Us: US - +1 845 478 5244 | UK - +44 20 7193 7850 | AUS - +61 2 8005 4826

Reduction in the statute of limitations of action

n California, for example, recovery for non-economic damages are limited to $250,000. According to the Supreme Court of California, “noneconomic damages compensate the plaintiff for ‘pain, suffering, inconvenience, physical impairmentdisfigurement and other nonpecuniary damage [as per Cal.Civ.Code section 3333.2, subdivision (a)].’ Section 1431.2, subdivision (b)(2) similarly defines noneconomic damages as ‘subjective, non-monetary losses including, but not limited to, pain, suffering, inconvenience, mental suffering, emotional distress, loss of society and companionship, loss of consortium, injury to reputation and humiliation.’”[41] Tort reform supporters argue that states have enacted such laws in order to keep health care costs low, in addition to helping curb medical malpractice litigation. However, according to the Supreme Court of California, the state’s non-economic damages caps are “not a legislative attempt to estimate the true damages suffered by plaintiffs, but rather an attempt to control and reduce medical malpractice insurance costs by placing a predictable, uniform limit on the defendant’s liability for noneconomic damages.”[42]

Texas law creates the most difficult “hurdles” in the United States for a plaintiff to succeed in recovering damages for any medical malpractice, even for such objectivecases such as an emergency room exposure to the Ebola virus disease.[43]

Texas passed a “tort reform” law taking effect on September 1, 2003.[44] The act limited non-economic damages (e.g., damages for pain and suffering) in most malpractice cases to $250,000 across all healthcare providers and $250,000 for healthcare facilities, with a limit of two facilities per claim.[44][45] As of 2013, Texas was one of 31 states to cap non-economic damages.[44]

Following 2003, medical malpractice insurance rates were reduced in Texas.[44][46] However, the Center for Justice & Democracy at New York Law School reports that rate reductions are likely attributable not to tort laws, but because of broader trends, such as “political pressure, the size of prior rate hikes, and the impact of the industry’s economic cycle, causing rates to drop everywhere in the country.” States which do not impose caps on malpractice damages, such as Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Washington, have experienced reductions or stabilization in malpractice rates as well