"There are 19 states that have malpractice caps, and none of them have a provision in them that if the awards are capped at a certain number when the premiums are paid then the premiums will be reduced," he says.
"In fact, the opposite has been shown, that the premiums increase. And there is nothing in the statute that says when there has been a decrease and the insurance companies will reap the benefits of that they will pass the savings on to the doctors. That has not been done. They are not, in fact, paying lesser premiums."
Defense Attorneys See it Differently
Jeff Scott, general counsel for the Florida Medical Association, which filed an amicus brief supporting the caps, blasted the high court's ruling.
"We had documented the premium increases prior to 2003 and in many instances we were seeing triple-digit increases. It was a full-blown crisis. The rates were skyrocketing. Physicians were dropping their coverage because they couldn't afford it," he says.
"For the (FL) Supreme Court to question whether there was a medical malpractice crisis was absurd. They were either living under a rock in 2003 or just plain ignorant. I cannot fathom how they made that determination."
Scott says tort caps "absolutely" work. "One needs only look at the states that have an effective cap in place, such as California and Texas, to see that malpractice rates are lower and the movement of physicians to those states," he says.