Cash gathers over Proposition 46

A male patient uses a walker frame. Photo: Bikeriderlondon, via Shutterstock

It’s on the ballot and off the public’s radar, but months before Election Day the campaign cash already is piling up — $44 million and counting — for what is certain to be a massive TV blitz in the fall between doctors, lawyers and insurers over Proposition 46.

Foes are raising campaign cash 10-to-1 over proponents.

The measure would raise the $250,000 ceiling on pain-and-suffering damages in medical malpractice lawsuits, a limit that was signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown during his first term as governor nearly 40 years ago.  But critics of that law, led by some consumer groups and attorneys, have long complained that the cap in the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, or MICRA, was inadequate and hurt the ability of malpractice victims to get top-flight attorneys to fight damages.

Proposition 46 would lift the MICRA ceiling and peg the limit to inflation. If the proposition is approved in November, the new cap would be just over $1.1 million. The measure also requires drug and alcohol testing for physicians, that supporters say is similar to the testing currently required for law enforcement officers and pilots.

The foes of Proposition 46 include the California Medical Association and an array groups representing hospitals, clinics, dentists, insurers and organized labor, among others. They have raised more than $40 million, according to financial disclosure records at the secretary of state’s office. They raised some $32 million through March 31, the end of the current reporting period, plus another $8 million from April 1 through this week.  They have spent less than $1 million.

About $5 million came in within the last few days — $2.5 million from the California Association of Hospitals and Health Systems on July 25 and $2.5 million from the Medical Insurance Exchange of California on July 24.

Fully half the total amount of money raised so far by opponents of Proposition 46 has come from just a handful of companies, with $5 million each from the California Medical Association, the Doctors Group, the NorCal Mutual Insurance Company and the Cooperative of American Physicians, according to the secretary of state.

Supporters have raised about $4 million, and their spending included signature-gathering costs to qualify the measure for the ballot. The campaign in favor of Proposition 46 is headed by the Consumer Attorneys of California and Consumer Watchdog, the advocacy group that authored Proposition 103 of 1988, the insurance industry reform initiative.

A deadline for campaigns to submit the latest spending and contribution reports is Thursday.


  • Eric Andrist

    Gee….the “foes” must really be running scared if they need to amass so much blood money to fight this proposition. They know darned good and well that when this proposition passes, they won’t be able to hoard nearly as much profit off the harm and deaths of patients, like those of us fighting for patient safety in California.

    • Support MICRA

      VOTE NO on 46!

      I really doubt the voters of California want broad and expensive changes to their healthcare system that are written by trial lawyers to benefit trial lawyers. Hospitals, doctors, labor unions, civil liberties groups, the Republican party all oppose Prop 46. Even the California Democratic who endorsed all the other propositions on this November’s ballot refused to endorse Prop 46. Why? It goes way to far to benefit trial lawyers at the expense of all Californians.

      Join me and VOTE NO on 46!

      • Eric Andrist

        First of all, Prop 46 ISN’T “broad and expansive changes to their healthcare system!” It doesn’t change the healthcare system at all. It changes the legal aspects of MICRA preventing victims getting to court. It also requires doctors in hospitals to be drug tested as the CMA itself reported that 1 in 5 doctors will have a drug/alcohol problem during their career. It also forces doctors to use the CURES database to prevent drug overdoses by doctor shoppers. That’s not changing the “healthcare system!”

        Even so, a polling of California voters found that 71% of them would vote YES on Prop 46. So it looks like you don’t know much about voters.

        Almost all propositions are written by lawyers. I take great offense that you think it only benefits lawyers. My disabled sister was KILLED by a negligent doctor and hospital and MICRA nearly prevented me from getting a lawyer to represent me in court. Most medical negligence victims NEVER get a lawyer to represent them due to MICRA. You’d change your tune if you went to the hospital for surgery and came out with no arms and legs like Annette Ramirez

        Yes, we all know about all the followers who don’t have minds of their own and oppose Prop 46 because the big, bad medical and insurance industries tell them to.

        And it’s a LIE, LIE, LIE that the Democratic party refused to endorse Prop 46….I was there! It was a mutual agreement to take NO POSITION…they did NOT refuse to endorse!

        See how the opponents just lie about all this stuff. They have no real evidence so they try to mislead the voting public into believing them. Here’s the video I took at the Democratic EBoards proving it!

        Check out all the groups that are behind the NO campaign….it’s all medical and industry related! Close to $80 million pledged to oppose….they must really be running scared!

        • Support MICRA

          Hogwash! The average medical malpractice payout in California is around $170,000 – far less than MICRA allow just for non-economic damages – not to mention that MICRA allows for unlimited economic damages, medical costs and punitive damages that result in multimillion dollar awards in California medical malpractices cases when appropriate. People seem to have no trouble finding lawyers for all these cases that settle for less than $250,000. MICRA stops lawyers from filing weak cases which was its original intent. With healthcare costs rising out of control, we need MICRA in California more than ever. Mr. Andrist, I am truly sorry for your loss and wish you the best of luck with your pending lawsuit.
          Please, Vote NO on 46!

          • Eric Andrist

            I don’t even understand most of what you wrote. What does the average malpractice payout have to do with anything? It’s less because most cases that actually make it to litigation, settle. The bulk of patient harm cases never make it to litigation because of MICRA!

            Even though MICRA ALLOWS for those things, that doesn’t mean that a victim automatically gets them! MICRA discriminates against women who don’t work outside the home, children, senior citizens and the disabled. More times than not, those people have no outside income and don’t qualify to receive any economic damages other than their medical bills. If those are covered by the state, they don’t even qualify for those! My sister was disabled, the only thing she qualifies for is non-economic damages, which MICRA caps at $250,000. So even if we win, we first have to take out $100,000 or more for court costs (Jessica Chan’s case cost over $1 million in court costs), and then the lawyer fees which is another $75,000. That leaves $75,000 in 1975 valued dollars, or about $17,000 in todays dollars.

            Punitive damages are extremely rare and only awarded about 5% of the time. So don’t make it sound like all cases get all these winnings, it’s simply untrue.

            Multimillion dollar awards are usually for economic damages that go to pay hospital bills and to care for the person in the future after they’ve been harmed by a negligent doctor. It’s not so they can buy multi-million dollar homes and cars. Further, the payouts are not made all at once, and if the victim dies, the payouts stop.

            Where are you getting your information? I know TONS of victims that never find a lawyer to take their case. I also know even more who find a lawyer only to have them quit because the case starts costing more than they can ever make back! That happened to both Jessie Geyer and Adam Glover’s families on the website.

            There is absolutely no provision in MICRA that stops lawyers from filing “weak cases.” Show me where it says that. It is our constitutional right to be able to file any type of case we want! That doesn’t mean it’ll make it in front of a jury! It’s “summary judgment” that weeds out weak cases, not MICRA.

            It also was NOT MICRA’s original intent. Have you done absolutely NO research? MICRA’s original intent was solely to keep malpractice insurance premiums down. That has nothing to do with weak cases.

            22 states have no medical tort reform and 13 have found it to be unconstitutional. Show me any one of those states that have higher healthcare costs because they don’t have tort reform.

            Either get educated, or stop spreading misinformation.

          • Support MICRA

            Quit drinking the trial lawyers Kool-Aid. Most medical malpractices cases in California (80%) are found in favor of the doctor. Lawyers like to have people believe that any bad outcome from medical care must be the doctor’s fault. That generates work for them. Real improvements in patient safety are not going to come from Prop 46 that was craftily written to benefit trial attorneys. In fact, I would argue that Prop 46 will hurt patients by cutting of access to care and spending money unwisely on things such as drug testing doctors repeatedly without cause. Again, Mr. Andrist, I am truly sorry for your loss and wish you the best of luck suing the doctors and hospital that cared for your sister.

          • Eric Andrist

            I agree that most cases that make it to court are found in favor of the doctors, I didn’t say differently. What does that have to do with anything I said?????

            Of course lawyers are paid to try their cases effectively. Lawyers on both sides will say lots of stuff, that doesn’t automatically mean the majority of victim’s stories are untrue or unmerited. Why shouldn’t lawyers try to generate work for themselves? Do you think they should be trying all cases for free??? LOL What percentage of your work do you do for no money?

            We’re not trying to change the system with Prop 46, just improve it. LOTS of things need to happen to make patients safer as was talked about last week in the Senate hearing for patient safety.

            Prop 46 DOESN’T benefit trial lawyers…that’s absurd! There is still a sliding scale applied to lawyer fees on MICRA cases even if Prop 46 passes! Get informed, dude!

            Stop talking about losing access to care unless you can show me where the loss of tort reform in 22 states has led to loss of access to care. You’re just a Mynah bird repeating the CMA propaganda!

            Doctors themselves have to pay for their own drug testing and are not allowed to pass the costs onto customers or their insurance companies.

          • elvin409

            What average payout? Are you kidding? The average is zero for 85% of cases brought. How many Billions are the insurers worth now after nearly 40 years of making the patient victims eat their losses? Go online and look at The Doctors Co., Norcal. CAP mpc. The Cap mpc office in downtown LA
            would put Sadam Husein’s palaces to shame.

  • Fed Up

    So the trial lawyers behind this initiative argue that it’s necessary because the $250k cap hurts the ability of malpractice victims “to get top-flight attorneys.” Doesn’t that say more about the attorneys than the damages cap?

    • Eric Andrist

      No…to get ANY attorney. Clearly you don’t understand how medi-mal cases work.

      It took me over 8 months to find an attorney to take my disabled sister’s case with over a dozen lawyers of all kinds turning me down, citing MICRA.

      Lawyers take these cases on a contingency basis, meaning they front all the costs to bring the cases to court. If they lose the case, they lose every dime they put into it.

      MICRA disproportionately discriminates against women who don’t work outside the home, senior citizens, children and the disabled. Many of those people only qualify for “pain and suffering” damages because they have little or no “economic damages.” My sister didn’t work, wasn’t married and had no children. Her medical care was covered by the state, so all her case qualifies for is “pain and suffering damages.” That’s what MICRA limits.

      So any attorney accepting our case, can only sue for the $250,000. Out of that amount has to come the court costs which can run $100,000 or more. The attorney fees are another $75,000. That only leaves about $75,000 for the victim and that’s in 1975 valued dollars, the year MICRA was passed. It’s never been raised with inflation.

      So if the attorney that takes my case loses, he’ll lose $100,000 or more. If he wins, he can only get about $75,000. So would you risk losing more than you can actually make on the case, knowing that over 70% of medi-mal cases are decided in favor of the doctors?

  • Joy Abbott

    I just wish that they hadn’t combined two separate issues into one measure. I imagine that an overwhelming majority of people favor testing doctors for drugs & alcohol, but people who are in favor of testing are not necessarily in favor of lifting the cap on malpractice issues.

    • Eric Andrist

      It’s not separate issues, it’s all one issue: Patient Safety. Just like a cake has many ingredients, it’s still just ONE cake.

      Why wouldn’t someone be in favor of lifting the cap? Caps prevent legitimate medical negligence cases from getting to court! Even the original author of California’s cap, Senator Barry Keene agrees that the cap needs to be raised!

      MICRA’s sole purpose was to keep doctors malpractice insurance rates low…it never did that. It wasn’t until the passage of Prop 103 in 1988 that their rates began to fall. Here’s the insurance commissioner talking about how he used Prop 103, not MICRA to lower their rates over $50 million in 2012.

      The only purpose MICRA serves is to protect negligent doctors and hospitals from accountability when they harm a patient.

      • Ryan Woods

        Because the amount one can sue for “pain and suffering” does not need to be increased. If the damages are real there is no limit.

        • Eric Andrist

          You are 100% incorrect. Where did you get that information?? It’s BECAUSE the “pain and suffering” damages are capped so low, that victims cant get lawyers to accept their cases. Did you look at any of the pro 46 information at all, or did you just sit and fall for all the NO campaign’s propaganda?

          My disabled sister does not qualify for any of the unlimited damage awards because she was disabled, unmarried, hand no job, no spouse and no income. She only qualifies for the capped damages of $250,000. It took me over 8 months to find a lawyer to accept her case, with over a dozen turning me down because of MICRA. Had 4 more months passed without a lawyer accepting the case, the negligent doctors and hospital that killed her would have simply gotten away with it, ready to harm the next patients.

          That still could happen. If my lawyer pays out over $250,000 in costs, neither of us will get any money at all and the lawyer will lose money. If he does that before we even get to court, he can drop the case and I’ll be right back at square ZERO and they will get away with her death.

          So there very much IS a limit. I don’t know where you got that erroneous information!

          • Ryan Woods

            I understand the proposition and current law better than you do. There is no cap one can sue for loss of function or economic loss. All the proposition does is increase the amount one can sue for the subjective “emotional distress” nonsense. Any lawyer will be more than happy to take a malpractice lawsuit where there are actual physical damages for the amount they can sue for is limitless. All you have to do is understand how current law works.

            It sounds to me you want the cap increased to sue doctors for what they are not responsible for in the case of your already disabled sister. Where they at fault for that? No. Therefore, you have no case.

          • Eric Andrist

            Clearly you don’t, because you’re still wrong. There is no economic compensation for “loss of function,” only economic losses such as wages or medical bills. You’re not LOSING anything economic when you lose function…that’s a “pain and suffering” loss.

            You’re 100% wrong about “any lawyer will be more than happy to take a malpractice lawsuit where there are actual physical damages for the amount they can sue for is limitless.”

            Again, you’re wrong about the loss of function so that negates it right there. Two, I can put you in touch with at least 100 victims who were severely harmed and unable to get a lawyer to take their case. Three, nothing is “limitless.” Even economic damages can only be claimed up to the point that you have actual costs or lost wages. You can’t get more than that so it’s not “limitless.”

            Those are your words, not mine. I’m suing for what the doctors were responsible for, not what they weren’t responsible for. That doesn’t even make sense!


            1. never gave my sister a physical in the ER before treating her
            2. gave her medications she had over 6 contraindications for
            3. went against the radiologists recommendation to do oral contrast by IV instead of oral and gave her oral contrast which she ended up aspirating into her lungs and sent her into cardiac arrest.
            4. treated her as a DNR when she was not. Her records show they were wrong about this and I had told them 3 times already she was not a DNR.
            5. because they didn’t revive her in a timely manner, she became brain dead.

            Now what part of that is NOT the doctor’s fault?

          • Ryan Woods

            I am right, you just don’t know how the law works. Loss of function is tied to economic loss. You cannot function and are therefore entitled to money you would have otherwise been able to earn yourself. That’s called economic loss. If a doctor really did cut off your arms or made you disabled you would be able to sue for a lifetime of lost wages and medical costs. Again, the only limitation are “emotional” lawsuits.

            I am sorry your sister is disabled but that is not the doctors fault you are trying to sue and why a lawyer won’t take your lawsuit. He can’t make money on bad lawsuits. If you had a good case they would take it. The law works because it prevents fraudulent lawsuits for emotional reasons. You and your sister are actually exhibit A. Again, I am sorry your sister is disabled but the fact you are upset about that does not give you to right to sue people who had nothing to do with it. Sounds to me the law is working as it should.

    • Support MICRA

      That’s why they mixed it. The lawyers don’t care about drug testing. They have never brought it up before, but they have tried to overturn MICRA at least 10 different times It is most likely a violation of California’s Single Subject rule and will be thrown out if it does pass. There is no way that increasing the non economics damage cap has anything to do with patient safety. The LA Times quoted the backer of Prop 46 as saying that the drug testing was added only because it polled well. The “Ultimate Sweetener!” Vote NO on 46! Don’t be duped by the trial lawyers on this Trojan Horse initiative.

      • Eric Andrist

        It doesn’t matter whether “lawyers'” care about drug testing. As patients we all should care about whether the doctors treating us are drunk or stoned. Check out these stoned doctors:

        Drug testing of doctors has HARDLY been silent until the ballot measure! Here’s Dr. Arthur Caplan talking about it on Medscape back in August 2013: Here’s an article from Johns Hopkins from May 2013 “All hospitals should require drug, alcohol tests for physicians.” The Bangor Daily News wrote about it in November 2012.: Here’s an article from ABC News “Urine Drug Tests for Doctors?” from November 2008.

        Likewise, the medical and insurance industry never brought up” “privacy ” issues with the CURES database (that I’ve been able to find) until Prop 46. Now all of a sudden they’re concerned about privacy, even though the database has been in existence for nearly 20 years with no breaches!

        It is NOT a a violation of the single subject rule, or it wouldn’t be on the ballot and there would be lawsuits trying to get it off. It IS a single subject: Patient Safety. Why would anyone wait until it passes to throw it out? Your side is amassing and spending millions and millions of dollars…it would be idiotic to wait until it passed to try and get it off the ballot because of the single subject rule.

        Raising the cap will make doctors more careful thereby making patients safer.

        By definition, to sweeten something is “to make it more valuable or attractive.” When a hospital wants to woo an excellent doctor to join their team, they’ll often sweeten the financial package they offer him/her. Do you think those sweeteners are bad as well? Doctors are notorious for getting “kickbacks” from the pharmaceutical companies, or in other words, sweeteners.” Are you also criticizing the very doctors you’re trying to protect? The ballot proposition sweetener is solely meant to make it safer for patients while doctor kickbacks are meant to line the doctors pockets with money. Ironic how they’re accusing lawyers of doing that with this proposition…even though the lawyer fees are capped!

  • Pingback: Cash gathers over Proposition 46 - Capitol Week...

  • Support MICRA

    I would invite every to read through Prop 46. It is the most deceptive ballot initiative that will be presented to the voters this fall. Disguised as a “Patient Safety” initiative, it really is a “Lawyer Enrichment” initiative that will be paid for by all Californians, but mostly the poor and middle class. Leave it to California Trial Lawyers to parade around bad doctors and victims of malpractice to try to increase their pay day in California. Too bad they don’t tell the stories of all the people who live healthy lives and were saved because they had access to medical care that is threatened by this initiative. Trust me, if this initiative passes, doctors and community clinics will close there doors as practicing in California will no longer be viable. California already has a 20% doctor shortage and a 30% lawyer surplus. Should we really be passing laws that will drive doctors away and attract lawyers while increasing our health care costs by hundreds of millions per year? Join me and VOTE NO on 46!

    • Eric Andrist

      Lawyers fees are capped within MICRA on a sliding scale—the higher a jury verdict, the more of it goes to the VICTIM, not the lawyer. This guy just doesn’t know what he’s talking about and repeats the medical and insurance industry propaganda like a mynah bird.

      Everyone on the Pro Prop 46 side will applaud good doctors and we do. But this issue is about bad doctors, which is generally only about 5% of all doctors. Regardless, that 5% is creating upwards of 440,000 deaths from medical error every year, or about 1000 deaths every day.

      That’s unacceptable. The chances of you being harmed in a hospital are great. Remember, that’s only the people that die, that doesn’t count all the people who are merely harmed. The numbers are astronomical.

      298 people died in the recent plane crash that was shot down with a missile and the world talked about it for days on the news. 1000 people are dying every day from medical negligence, and most people either don’t realize it or just simply don’t want to believe it will happen to them.

      It’s happened in my family twice now….it can happen to you.

      Vote YES on Prop 46 in November, but do a little research of your own’ll see that I’m right.

    • chris

      I don’t know if you are interested in a reasoned discussion, but if you are, let me tell you the reality faced by people who are injured by medical errors: if they are not a primary bread winner for their family, or otherwise a high income earner, most lawyers can’t take the case. That’s not because lawyers don’t want to do good, but it’s because to take a malpractice case is VERY expensive, and if the most you can recover is $250,000 then most cases are just not worth taking because the lawyer’s pay (a maximum of $74,166) is way less than the time put into the case (often lasting years). So what is the consequence? The consequence is there are MANY cases, that are valid cases, where the patient was harmed, with serious consequences, even death, that the perpetrator of the medical error will get away with. Rather than that person being responsible for the harm caused, that responsibility falls on the victim or the tax payer. So what the MICRA cap currently does is protect wrongdoers from accountability, and deprive victims of justice. If you are really worried about doctors leaving the state, etc. etc., just take a look around the country. That’s just not happening in places with caps, whether they are 250,000 or a million. I agree with the LA Times to a point – this should have been addressed long ago by the legislature, but they’re afraid of the insurance lobby and the doctors and hospital lobbies (combined the richest lobbyist in the State), so they won’t, they leave it to us, the people. Its an inelegant solution, but the time is now, and the result is the right result.

      • VOTE NO on 46

        If that is truly the case, then why are most (around 75%) of medical malpractice cases filed in California found to be meritless? Also, why is the average medical malpractice case that succeeds in California paid out at around $170,000? I agree that the $250,000 cap is a point for discussion, but Prop 46 does many other things that would quite frankly be an expensive disaster for Californians. Vote No on 46.

        • Rick Strand

          Meritless? or lacking resources to continue the case further? The later is what it boils down to. Prop 46, very simply reaches into our homes and provides that added layer of protection for our loved ones. You are a paid staff of the opposition and lack all credibility. Enough! We must raise the bar!! I voted YES on yes!

      • Ryan Woods

        It only raises the limit one can sue for “pain and suffering.” If there are real physical damages from malpractice there is no limit to how much the victim can sue for.

        • Rick Strand

          Real Damages? How about the loss of LIFE? That real enough for you?

  • Robert Bates

    As a former medical malpractice attorney, I can personally cite you to the inherent injustice of the current $250,000 cap on pain and suffering damages. 43 year old father of five dies following hosptial mismanagment of his post-surgical complications. The suriving children each received 250,000 divided by 5 for the loss of their father. Even the greatest advocates of “tort reform” cannot rationally justify that outcome. Calfiornia jurors are by nature conservative – physicians prevail on over 85% of the medical malpractice cases that go to trial. The fiction being spun by the physicians and hosptials, which are responsible for over 100,000 deaths a year due to medical malpractice (compare that to 13,000 deaths due to drunk drivers), misrepresents the simple fact that it is impossible to rationally justify a potential award of $250,000 for the emotional toll for the negligent death of a human being.

  • Ryan Woods

    All prop 46 does is increase the amount one can sue for “pain and suffering.” There is no limit to how much the victim can sue for due to loss of function and economic loss. Prop 46 does nothing more than increase the amount greedy lawyers and sue happy people can sue for “emotional” reasons. It is a nonsense bill that forces doctors to take drug tests for 2 years for simply being accused of drug use. Forcing them to spend their own money to prove their innocence that will in turn increase medical costs. Furthermore, the data base that the state wants to force doctors to check before writing prescriptions isn’t even operational. It is just another attempt by bureaucrats to run our health care system. It will create more workload for doctors and increase already long wait times.

    • Elder Care Advocate

      Dear Ryan,
      If your daughter is hit crossing the street and is sent to a local hospital that uses patient revenues to buy more buildings rather than scheduling enough care staff, and she dies because the nurses did not have time to access her, the maximum died, the maximum the judge can allow your family to be awarded is $250,000, from which all court costs, expert fees, investigator fees, court reporter fees, and jury fees must be deducted. And, if you are unlucky enough to have signed a forced arbitration agreement, you will also have to deduct the cost of the $700 an hour arbitrator, another $50,000 more. The health care providers attorneys get paid by the insurance companies by the hour, they want to drag things out, its how they win. “Death by Delay.”

      If your mother is sent to a nursing home to rehabilitate after surgery and she is raped by a care giver that the nursing home did not do a background check on, the most a judge can allow her to be compensated is $250,000, from which all costs and fees must be paid.

      If you go to a dentist for your annual check up, and in a hurry he does not check you for oral cancer and your tongue is cut out. Your cap is also $250,000, from which all fees and costs must be paid.

      There are no additional damages for loss of function. The $250,000 cap on pain and suffering includes: physical pain, physical impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, disfigurement, grief, humiliation, emotional distress, inconvenience, and anxiety. If you die before your case gets to trial, all of you pain and suffering just died with you. If you die from the injuries caused by a health care provider, your family’s recovery for the loss of your love and what you provide to your wife and children as a husband and father, like advice, companionship, emotional security, is capped at a grand total of $250,000 for everyone’s loss, not $250,000 each.

      If you were the breadwinner in your family, you better hope you had a very high paying job, because otherwise, your family will get little. And, what about all the things you do for your family for which you get no paid income? What if it was your wife who was maimed or killed and she is a stay at home mom? Then your family’s loss will be covered completely by the $250,000 cap. That includes, your loss, her mom and dad’s loss, your kids, everyone all gets to share whatever is left after all is paid.

      If $250,000 was fair 40 years ago is it still fair today? 40 years ago gas was about 50 cents a gallon, a first class stamp cost a dime, a loaf of bread was about a quarter, and you could buy a new car for about $3,500. Prop 46 will only raise the cap to inflation.

  • Rick Strand

    Prop 46 will make the Dr. slow down and spend more time on the patient. It will hold the Dr.. accountable when they’re careless. It will require be drug/alcohol tested, ensuring our safety. The days of the 5 minute appointment, tossing out a plethora of prescriptions without proper diagnosis is coming to an end!! The days of marginalizing our loved ones is coming to an END. Finally, this white coat, God like complex and arrogance is coming to an END! I look forward to this becoming a law! * I am a parent who lost his healthy 24 year old daughter, a new mother of just 4 months to a doctor who carelessly gave her 2 medications killing her and the opposition wants me to be accepting? Not so much! This health and safety initiative reaches into each of our homes, providing that very necessary added layer of security for our families. For those thinking this is about the attorney’s…..Keep in mind that this is the only door open to you when you seek justice, wanting to hold a Dr. accountable. The only door!! ~ That is, unless it falls under MICRA. Regardless, as soon as Dr’s learn of our loved one’s death, they call legal, circling the wagons while we’re still in shock, bawling uncontrollably. We can expect more and we are going to get it……….Yes on 46!

    • Fifty Ville

      Condolences on the loss of your daughter. What was her name and where is she buried so I can send flowers for her grave?

  • Fifty Ville

    How about if there’s a straight cap on lawyer’s fees? Say, $250,000, so that the bulk of the money goes to the victim and not their lawyer. $250,000 is a lot of money and a lawyer could easily live off of that.

  • Rick Strand

    The Doctors, Cops, Judges, all of us go to work for money and so due the attorneys. I’ve gone to the others and found that my only course of action due to how the medical industry is setup is an attorney. The families are continually tortured and brutalized because their complaint is viewed as Frivolous until prove in a court of law and decision rendered. My daughters life, frivolous? Not so much. YES on 46! We have an opportunity to provide our families that added layer of protection. Take a long look at who you love and then vote because this is all this is about. Yes on 46!

Support for Capitol Weekly is Provided by: