1.) The FMA amendment is not appropriate for inclusion in
the Florida Constitution.
Associated
Industries of Florida and the business community are unanimous
in opposition to constitutional amendments like those now being
advanced by the FMA, the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, and
ones pertaining to Florida Hometown Democracy and the Minimum
Wage & Sales Tax Exemption. None of these provisions warrant
inclusion in our Constitution. We steadfastly believe that constitutional
amendments should only deal with state governance structure or
limitations on state government powers – anything else is superfluous.
Moreover, we believe limiting attorneys’ fees, doctors’ fees or
any other professions’ service fees, constitutionally, is unprecedented,
unwise and dangerous. What’s next? Constitutional limitations
on executive compensation? A requirement for mandatory liability
insurance for doctors and lawyers?
2.)
The FMA amendment is premature. It does not allow recent legislation
the time necessary to have a meaningful impact. Even if the amendment
passes, it is not likely to lower medical malpractice insurance
rates, and could cause rates to increase.
With
the recent medical malpractice legislation having gone into effect
only on January 1, no one has yet been able to gauge the
real impact of the intended reforms. While the legislation has
had some impact on medical malpractice insurance rates, the FMA
amendment, even if it withstands review by the Florida Supreme
Court, will not significantly reduce insurance rates. This is
exactly what has happened in other areas of Florida law resulting
in “increased” insurance rates.
3.)
The FMA amendment will be seen by newspaper editorial boards and
the voting public as senseless retribution.
For
the last six months, every Florida newspaper editorial board has
opposed unwarranted and inappropriate amendments that might be
added to Florida’s Constitution. The FMA amendment, however well
intentioned, will be opposed by the newspapers as well. Even the
FMA’s staunchest supporter – the Florida Times Union in
Jacksonville – has publicly stated its opposition to their initiative
campaign. The progress toward tort reform or medical malpractice
cost reduction will be shattered when the experts weigh in on
the FMA amendment. It is simply meant to punish FMA opponents.
It will not be well-received, and it could set back the cause
for future medical liability reform.
4.)
The FMA “anti-lawyer” amendment has prompted trial lawyers to
propose three “anti-doctor” amendments. In all likelihood there
will be a “pox on both of your houses.”
Already,
the trial lawyers have filed three dangerous amendments. These
amendments will take away the license of any doctor who is found
to have committed three or more cases of medical malpractice;
make public all adverse medical incident reports and peer review
records for all facilities and providers, including the records
of incidents that resulted in death or injury; and force all doctors
to charge all patients the lowest rate they charge any of their
patients. Our sources in California tell us that the largest
signature gathering firms in the nation have been retained by
the Academy and are amassing petitions. The trial lawyers
have the financial resources and the acumen to pass each of their
counter measures – witness their recent legislative successes
and their victory in 1988 with Amendment #10.
We
believe that if both the FMA amendment and the trial lawyer amendments
were to pass, the result would be hurtful to both professions,
and it would be a “pox on both of your houses.” The business community
and the insurance industry are unquestionably opposed to both
sets of amendments, and we will not support either.
