Health Care

Matheny Predicts More Tort Reform at Doctors Town Hall

Speaking at an anti-Obamacare event in Nashville Saturday, the Tennessee House speaker pro tem said he hopes this year’s tort reform legislation is only “the first step of several steps.”

House Speaker Pro Tem Judd Matheny says the Legislature will probably seek more tort reform next year, and Gov. Bill Haslam, no fan of the new federal health care law, says it’s time to start talking about how to implement the new act anyway.

Those developments show that health care issues remain very much on the table for Tennessee. While tort reform is usually thought of as a legal issue, proponents of limiting malpractice and wrongful death lawsuits have cited litigation as a driver of health care costs.

Matheny, R-Tullahoma, told a Doctors Town Hall audience at Lipscomb University in Nashville on Saturday that he hopes this year’s tort reform legislation is only “the first step of several steps in issues we hope to deal with in regard to tort reform.”

During a break in the formal discussion, Matheny elaborated on those plans and pointed to a so-called “loser pays” effort that could be the next measure in tort liability in Tennessee.

“I just know the General Assembly is very interested in additional tort reform,” Matheny said.

“‘Loser-pays’-type scenarios are ones we will look at, especially with regard to what would be perceived as malicious lawsuits.”

Matheny said potential legislation would address situations where there are possibly second or third appeals in cases.

“A case in point would be if somebody filed a third appeal and the answer was the same as the first two, whether both are in the negative or both in the positive. That person would be responsible for the legal fees,” he said.

The approach would be to confront those who are seen as abusing the system. It would follow a tort reform measure passed this year and spearheaded by Haslam that put caps on non-economic damages in civil cases at $750,000, although the law creates exceptions in cases that involve intentional misconduct, destruction of records or activity under the influence of drugs or alcohol.

Those caps go to $1 million in what are categorized as “catastrophic” cases, which are defined in the law as conditions of paraplegia, quadriplegia, amputation, especially severe burns or the wrongful death of a parent leaving minor children. The new law also caps punitive damages at two times compensatory damages or $500,000, whichever is greater.

Matheny said he would like to see the caps in the law go even lower — to around $250,000 or $300,000 — but he said he did not foresee the Legislature taking that path.

“There will probably be a lot of (tort reform) legislation filed, but there will probably be one thing that rises to the top and is carried by the body,” Matheny said. “I don’t know what that will be yet, but I think there will be some additional tightening.”

Matheny said he has not spoken to Haslam about further tort reform and that Haslam probably wants to give the most recent law a chance to take effect. But there seems to be little doubt that the Legislature is prepared to consider further steps on the topic.

“It’s important to remember that sometimes progress is made in baby steps and after a three- or four-year period maybe we can look back and really see some true progress,” Matheny said.

Spine surgeon says government doesn’t help

The town hall audience Saturday at Lipscomb was an overwhelmingly conservative crowd, with 10 panelists and audience members expressing dislike of the 2010 federal health care overhaul.

Dr. Lee Heib, a spine surgeon and president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, spoke of her practice as a small business owner.

“If you have to run a small business, if you have to produce something, when has the government come in and made your job easier or more cost-effective? It’s never done that. Trust me, it doesn’t do it in medicine either,” she said.

Andrew Schlafly, general counsel for AAPS, who went to law school with President Barack Obama, said the fundamental problem with the new health care law is that it forces citizens to purchase coverage.

“That is the foundation of it, and that is basically un-American,” Schlafly said. “To force people to buy something you don’t want to buy, it’s never been done before. You can look through the Constitution. You can read it backward and forward and ask yourself, ‘What gives the federal government the authority to force us to buy something we don’t want to buy?'”

That’s the question raised by the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, which has asked the Supreme Court to review a lower court decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, in Cincinnati, ruled against the center earlier this summer, finding the law to be constitutional.

Legal challenges regarding the act also are pending in the Fourth and 11th circuits. It has not been determined if the high court will take up the issue.

The town hall meeting included state Sen. Mae Beavers, R-Mt. Juliet, who spoke to the audience of about 125 people about her Tennessee Health Freedom Act (SB079), which Haslam has signed, which says government cannot force a person to purchase a product as the new federal law does, and prevents penalties against those who wish to opt out of the system.

Beavers also touted her Health Care Compact legislation (SB326), a states’ rights measure, which would allow states to join forces to control their health care funds. That bill passed in the state Senate this year but not in the House.

Ben Cunningham of Tennessee Tax Revolt told the audience the federal health care overhaul would be such a burden on the state it would force talk of a state income tax.

U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Brentwood, spoke of Tennessee’s problems with TennCare as an example of what can go wrong with government-run health care.

Haslam: State should prepare to implement health care act

Haslam, meanwhile, said in a recent interview that time is a factor in whether to address the new federal health care legislation, commonly referred to as “Obamacare,” which has been overshadowed recently in Washington. The most significant aspects of the law do not kick in until 2014, but the law requires states to be ready in several ways when that time comes.

“I quite frankly am surprised that as the clock ticks closer to 2014 there’s not more conversation,” Haslam said.

But he noted one group is paying very close attention to the issue.

“There is a lot of conversation among governors, saying, ‘We need to be prepared to implement this if it does happen,'” Haslam said, adding that “it would be irresponsible not to.”

The 2010 election year brought a significant uproar about the new law, with talk of repealing it after a new Congress was put in place. But Haslam, who opposes the plan, said the furor about the law has seemed to subside since then.

“A year ago, in the middle of the campaign, that was all the talk,” Haslam said. “I don’t know if in Washington the whole budget and debt issue has eclipsed everything else. I don’t know if that’s the situation.”

The foremost issue in the new law is for states to set up exchanges — marketplaces involving competing insurance plans — where people would shop for what best fits their needs. States must set up their own exchanges or allow people to move into a federal exchange.

Tennessee is already working with various stakeholders and what are known as Technical Assistance Groups (TAGs) on the state’s options. The state is accepting comments and questions about the exchange process at

Haslam said the law’s implementation in Tennessee would likely be run through TennCare and the state Department of Finance and Administration. A finance spokeswoman referred questions on the matter to TennCare.

“We’re still watchfully waiting for guidance from CMS,” said Alyssa Lewis, communications manager for TennCare, referring to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. “We’re seeing what’s going to happen when there is more certainty. It’s to see what the options are, and what the appropriate options are for Tennessee.” is an independent, nonprofit news organization supported by generous donors like you!

8 replies on “Matheny Predicts More Tort Reform at Doctors Town Hall”

Tort Reform is a legal weapon used in Texas against Texans.

When there are laws on the books that prevent the common man from getting accountability, no telling what will happen.

Providing a link to a video showing just how Tort Reform is working out in Texas, or not.

If accessing link is difficult, just Google Cleveland Mark Mitchell, then click on youtube Cleveland Mark Mitchell December 12 1950 – April 26 2008.

Thank you for your time,

Cilla Mitchell

A Texas nurse and vet

What did Mark Mitchell go to the hospital for? Abdominal pain?

Why will no lawyer pursue this case against the hospital if it is cut and dry? What do they tell you?

What did your District Attorney say, wouldn’t the local law enforcement and prosecutors have jurisdiction in pressing charges against those responsible?

I can see where you link Governor Perry to the matter since he actually signed the law, but why do you tie in a Federal Congressman? Did he do something from Washington D.C. that killed your husband?

It is easy to agree with your case, but just because someone can not help you doesn’t make them guilty of a crime. You can ask your neighbor to investigate it, but if they can’t come up with anything it doesn’t mean they’re a part of the problem.

Good luck with your effort, it would seem that lawyers are looking for cases like yours.

Sure, I’m not thrilled about government forcing me to do anything….. but thinking about the options I am forced to confront the alternatives…..When everyone is “forced to purchase” health insurance coverage, the premiums go down. The cost of health care goes down. So, given that insurance must now cover everyone but not everyone “desires to buy coverage” and if the Naysayers have their way, I will be paying a lot more for my health insurance. Very bluntly and simply, why do I want to pay more for my health insurance only because this allows my neighbor to enjoy the freedom to buy more stuff (gadgets and vehicles) instead of buying health insurance? Sooner or later, he will be a consumer of medical care. If he develops a chronic illness and has no insurance, you and I will be paying for his care. You and I may also be paying for his social security disability if he gets medical help too late, loses his job and becomes disabled. The problem with some people “who opt out of purchasing health care insurance” is that WE who purchase health insurance coverage (and pay taxes) all eventually pay out a lot more through higher health insurance premiums and tax dollars.
Please explain to me how this is fair.

What options do the naysayers of the Affordable Health Law suggest? Not much. I scoff at the idea that deregulating insurance companies will do much good. Just ask millions of people who lost millions in pension funds if deregulation of financial institutions helped them.
The only other “affordable option” is to place begging jars in little quick marts and country stores.

We need to make up our mind:
1) Either we are a country that values access to proper health care for all people (meaning that everyone gets coverage for and access to medical treatment including prevention)
2) NO one is allowed access to medical treatment (under any circumstances) unless you can pay upfront.

If you select #1, you are slandered as a socialist. If you select #2, you are inhuman and immoral.

Many people say that they don’t trust or like big government. But why should we trust big corporations more than we do our elected representatives? At least I can attempt to fire my congressman by voting against him or her, but I am powerless when it comes to firing a CEO or board members of a big corporation.

#2 is not immoral. Expecting a service without having to pay for it is.

If someone, or a group, voluntarily helps people who can’t pay for medical care then that is moral. I have a quandary where a group of people will force another group of people to do charity on their behalf. The issue is clouded by the panoply of “charities” that the government tries to operate for us and mixed in with various other duties and agencies that are Constitutional and others not so much.

In the long run I suspect we’d all do best to have these things taken care of at the state level where more flexibility can be allowed and more accountability by the people. Not to mention that the states seem to do better at keeping the budget balanced.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *