If physicians face legal threat, AMA Litigation Center has their backs
If you can imagine checking your internet news feed to see if your work influenced the U.S. Supreme Court, then perhaps you have an idea what it's like to work for the Litigation Center of the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies.
A slew of Supreme Court decisions traditionally are released in late June. The decisions released late last month included two cases the AMA worked on: One involving issues of medical ethics and regulating free speech, and another addressing antitrust issues in a way that could affect where physicians are allowed to refer patients.
In addition, the Litigation Center is also involved with cases before 13 state supreme courts.
AMA's legal team helps protect medical liability reforms
Medical liability reform is a high state legislative priority for the AMA. Not surprisingly, then, it is also a high priority for the Litigation Center for the American Medical Association and State Medical Societies.
Evidence of this is the Litigation Center's involvement in five active tort reform-related cases before the state Supreme Courts of Kentucky, Michigan, Nevada, Oregon and Texas.
And evidence of the Litigation Center's success is the recent Wisconsin state Supreme Court 5–2 ruling that the state's $750,000 cap on awards for noneconomic damages did not violate the state constitution.
The Wisconsin cap on noneconomic damages is one component of a three-part strategy that has stabilized the state's medical liability environment.
Voter-backed Nevada tort reform faces court challenge
The Supreme Court of Nevada will decide the fate of a portion of the state's medical liability reform that has helped stabilize insurance rates for physicians and encouraged doctors to move to the Silver State and stay there to provide care.
The state's highest court is considering the constitutionality of a law that allows juries to hear whether a medical liability plaintiff's medical bills were paid by a third party, such as a health insurance company. Under the law, jurors considering monetary awards in medical liability cases can choose whether to award a plaintiff economic damages for money the insurance company already paid to settle medical bills.
No easy calls in high court case on crisis pregnancy centers
The U.S. Supreme Court's 5–4 ruling in a case pitting claims of free speech against patients' right to transparency regarding care shows how the matter at the heart of National Institute of Family and Life Advocates (NIFLA) v. Becerra has closely divided even the nation's highest court.
The court examined whether California's 2016 Reproductive Freedom, Accountability, Comprehensive Care and Transparency (FACT) Act requiring licensed "crisis pregnancy centers" (CPCs) to post a notice informing women of state aid for health services, including contraceptive counseling and abortions, violates the CPC staff's First Amendment freedom of speech guarantee.
The AMA's decision to get involved in the case was not easy, but ultimately the Association decided to support the state of California, basing the arguments in its amicus brief on medical ethics and a patient's right to informed consent. Those intricacies of the case were explored during a session hosted by the Litigation Center of American Medical Association and State Medical Societies at the 2018 AMA Annual Meeting.
