Session 3 Reserving Implications Of Tort Reform. Kevin M. Bingham – Deloitte . email@example.com Casualty Actuarial Society Loss Reserve Seminar September 13, 2004 1:30 PM – 3:00 PM Las Vegas, Nevada. INTRODUCTION. Medical Malpractice? Reserving Implications
Of Tort Reform
Kevin M. Bingham – Deloitte.
Casualty Actuarial Society Loss Reserve Seminar
September 13, 2004
1:30 PM – 3:00 PM
Las Vegas, Nevada
“He expressed concern, that facing five years of practice after his training in order to get specialty certification, he might find more lucrative employment as an expert witness in malpractice litigation than he might find as a health care practitioner.”
Florida House of Representatives Medical Liability Insurance Report – Observations from a Florida medical student
Quantifiable from a ratemaking and reserving perspective.
Highly subjective and difficult to quantify from a ratemaking and reserving perspective.
“In a medical malpractice case, the jury is instructed that if it finds the defendant liable, it is not to award the plaintiff more than $500,000 for pain and suffering, loss of companionship, embarrassment, and other items of general damages, unless it determines that there is:
a substantial or permanent loss or impairment of a bodily function or substantial disfigurement, or other special circumstances in the case which warrant a finding that imposition of such a limitation would deprive the plaintiff of just compensation for the injuries sustained.
Mass. Ann. Laws ch. 231, § 60H (Law. Co-op. Supp. 1997). Since this standard can often be met, the cap should not be relied on.”
Makes reserving assumptions easier (i.e., little impact)
See the September/October 2003 Contingencies Magazine article titled “Measuring the Impact
of Medical Liability Tort Reform” for a detailed illustration of the “phase-in” effect