Venue Rule Change Will Increase Cost of Healthcare and Threaten

Venue Rule Change Will Increase Cost of Healthcare and Threaten Patient Access in Pennsylvania

by Curt Schroder Executive Director PA Coalition for Civil Justice Reform

Closing of specialty services, rising health care costs, increasing liability premiums and a lack of health care professionals. That’s exactly what Pennsylvania was facing nearly 20 years ago. And now, because of actions taken by the state Supreme Court regarding venue in medical liability cases, the Commonwealth is at risk of repeating history.

Venue determines where in Pennsylvania a civil case can be filed. Venue shopping is when plaintiffs’ attorneys file civil lawsuits in Philadelphia and other high verdict jurisdictions in search of large jackpot verdicts– even though the location of the court has no connection to the case. This past August, the state Supreme Court rescinded the venue rule for medical malpractice cases – which had previously stated that medical malpractice cases had to be tried in the county in which the alleged incident took place. The recission of this rule allows forum shopping to once again take place in the Commonwealth. The original venue rule was put in place in the early 2000s to help address a health care crisis that was gripping the state. At the time, rampant venue shopping had led to skyrocketing liability premiums, which in turn was driving physicians and specialists out of Pennsylvania and causing hospitals and medical professionals to curtail services and close maternity wards. The issue rose to such a critical level that the state Supreme Court, Governor, and General Assembly came together to stop venue shopping. In 2003, the Supreme Court adopted a rule requiring all medical liability cases be filed in the county where the alleged cause of action, or injury, occurs.

In the years since the rule was implemented, the rule has done exactly what it was designed to do. The Commonwealth’s medical liability environment was right sized as the number of medical liability cases filed in Philadelphia and other high verdict counties plummeted and medical liability premiums stabilized.

Despite the success of the rule, over the past several years, plaintiffs’ attorneys launched a full-scale campaign to have it reversed in order to go back to the days of venue shopping in search of the bigger jackpot verdicts. For years, plaintiffs’ lawyers have argued that they can only obtain justice for their clients in Philadelphia and other locales known

EXPERTS EXPERTS WHO KNOW WHO KNOW YOU BY HEART YOU BY HEART

Our cardiology experts never miss a beat when it comes to your heart health. They’ll be there for you, whatever you’re facing— and put everything they’ve got into healing you. Discover Prime Healthcare Pennsylvania Region’s award- winning cardiology services.

Connect with one of our cardiologists today!

for jackpot verdicts. They fail to mention, however, that the larger the verdict, the greater their personal payday. If plaintiffs’ attorneys are truly concerned about recovering for their injured clients, they could ensure the plaintiff takes home more by reducing the percentage of their contingency fee. That would provide a substantial boost in the portion of the recovery benefiting the plaintiff. Yet, they have continually refused to reduce contingency fees. The trial bar’s true interest is in lining their own pockets. Unfortunately, however, the success of the rule ultimately led to its demise and the trial bar was successful in its fight to convince the Supreme Court to take action on this issue. While this rule change is a huge win for the trial bar, it will have dire impacts for residents throughout the state.

The Commonwealth already suffers from the second highest medical malpractice payouts in the nation and is in the midst of a clinician shortage. Additionally, a recent report from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Institute of Legal Reform has identified Pennsylvania as a top state for nuclear judicial verdicts. The report found that more than half of the Commonwealth’s nuclear verdicts, which are defined as a jury verdict of $10 million or more in personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits, took place in Philadelphia. Now that the Supreme Court has paved the way for plaintiffs’ attorneys to steer cases to high verdict courts, the number of nuclear verdicts is expected to go up. And that won’t be the only negative impact. A recently released independent actuarial report commissioned by Senate Judiciary Chair Lisa Baker, found a rule reversal would lead to a substantial increase in premiums. The independent report, which was completed by Oliver Wyman Actuarial Consulting, Inc., found a return to forum shopping would lead to an average of a 3.1 – 4.7 percent increase in premium rates for hospitals and a 4.9 – 7.2 percent hike in liability premiums for physicians across the Commonwealth. However, some counties would be much harder hit. Lancaster County, for example, could expect upwards of a 73 percent premium increase for hospitals and an 82 percent liability premium increase for physicians. Other counties mentioned in the report that would see substantial premium increases included Bedford, Chester, Clinton, Lycoming, Montgomery, Potter, Susquehanna, Tioga, and Venango. Additionally, the report concludes that an increase in professional liability premiums would lead to a decrease in the accessibility of healthcare services and would have a significant impact on the cost of medical care in the state.

The Supreme Court’s unilateral decision to undo two decades worth of legal stability in medical malpractice cases will have longterm ramifications if left unchecked. The judicial branch should not have the exclusive authority to establish venue policy. Clearly, action is needed to prevent another health care crisis. The Pennsylvania Coalition for Civil Justice Reform is encouraging lawmakers to address the venue issue once and for all to bring fairness and balance back to the state’s legal environment. We urge you to join us in this effort by reaching out to your state representative and senator to convey the negative impact the venue rule change will have on the Commonwealth’s health care landscape and ask for their support on this issue. It is critical that the General Assembly acts quickly in the upcoming legislative session. Maintaining access to affordable, quality health care is too important to risk by allowing venue shopping to run rampant. •