by Bradley Parsons
Staff Writer
Depending on who you listen to, the success of Amendment 3 on last week’s ballot either heralds a new era of cheaper medical care or an unconstitutional breach of a patient’s right to a lawyer.
The dispute over the amendment, which caps lawyers fees on medical malpractice cases, brought back together two familiar opponents: Florida’s doctors and lawyers. The medical establishment says the amendment, which passed by a surprisingly wide margin last Tuesday, will protect doctors from frivolous lawsuits, helping control costs for patients. Lawyers say the suits cost too much to be brought frivolously. They say the new amendment will make it harder for patients with legitimate cases to get lawyers and hint at a State Supreme Court challenge.
Spohrer Wilner Maxwell and Matthews attorney Sean Cronin said the amendment singles out medical malpractice claimants in the State constitution. The amendment will make frivolous lawsuits less likely, Cronin conceded, but at the expense of legitimate victims who will have a harder time finding an attorney to take their case.
It’s not unusual for medical malpractice cases to drag on for years, costing the representative firm hundreds of thousands of dollars, said Cronin. Under the typical contract for malpractice advocacy, the firm fronts the cost, hoping to recoup the money from a settlement or judgment. With a limit imposed on how much firms can earn, Cronin said lawyers will focus only on eminently winnable cases that promise large cash awards.
“We’ll have to take cases that have good jury appeal. We’ll have to change our analysis a little bit, become a little more selective,” said Cronin. “It’s very hard for a firm to risk several hundred thousand dollars if the end result doesn’t justify it.”
In the days following the vote, Cronin said he’d received calls from other malpractice lawyers looking to unload suddenly unprofitable cases. Cronin is keeping his clients — he said he has about 30 cases pending — and said he’ll continue to take malpractice cases.
“I’m not going to turn away cases because of this,” he said. “These people have a right to have access to the courts. We’ve always been committed to bringing meritorious cases, but now we’re going to have to be smarter, be a little leaner.”
Keeping law firms committed to substantive cases was entirely the point of Amendment 3 according to the Florida Medical Association. The FMA said in a statement the amendment would keep frivolous cases off the courts’ dockets, and said it would put more money from malpractice awards into the pockets of the victims.
“We never lost confidence that Amendment 3 was the best way to protect patients,” said FMA president Dennis Agliano.
Agliano labeled as a “scare tactic” the lawyers’ contention that the amendment would keep injured patients from getting lawyers.