"The trial lawyers have been wholly unable to substantiate the need for a change to MICRA," said John H. Sullivan, president of the Civil Justice Association of California (CJAC). "They've asked the Legislature to fix a system that isn't broken, and their fix will encourage litigation and increase the cost of medical care for all Californians."

The bill, AB 250 by Assemblymember Sheila Kuehl, proposes to increase MICRA's pain and suffering cap nearly threefold to $700,000, and to remove it altogether in certain cases. The cap played a central role in bringing malpractice costs in check and preventing the mass exodus of physicians that was threatened by a malpractice insurance crisis in the 1970s.

When the bill was being debated last year, several newspapers editorialized in support of MICRA:

"As a matter of public policy, why would a Democratic Legislature choose to reduce the amount of care available to the working poor so that trial lawyers, already among the state's wealthiest residents, can have a larger payday?" Sacramento Bee, May 30, 1997

"In effect, the trial lawyers, through Kuehl's bill, want to unravel a tort reform measure that has helped stabilize malpractice-insurance rates for 22 years." San Francisco Chronicle, June 4, 1997

The bill passed its first committee last May by a narrow one-vote margin, but languished on the Assembly Floor. The author moved the bill to the Inactive File in June when an informal tally of support among the full Assembly fell short of the 41 votes needed for passage.

"This bill is more about lawyer paydays than injured patients. It's noteworthy that the only time in MICRA's 22 years that trial lawyers mobilized to successfully amend it was in 1987 when they got a law to increase their fees and reduce the dollars an injured patient receives," Sullivan said.