State Capital Bureau - akessler@joplinglobe.com
JEFFERSON CITY - Gov. Bob Holden vetoed legislation Tuesday that would have imposed new restrictions on injury lawsuits, claiming the bill "hurts the common citizen" and even harms the very doctors it was intended to help.
Holden had promised a veto last week shortly after the legislature's Republican majority muscled the bill to passage. After carrying out the pledge Tuesday, he urged lawmakers to try again at passing a bill he could support before they adjourn May 14.
Joplin area legislators expressed their disappointment in Holden's decision, and said they thought the governor was "playing politics" with the issue of lawsuit liability limits.
Rep. Marilyn Ruestman, R-Joplin, said she thought Holden was using the legislation as a "political football" to please his voting base.
"It (the veto) was no surprise," Ruestman said. "We know he's in the pocket of the trial attorneys."
Ruestman said something needs to be done to bring down the cost of health insurance in Missouri, and that many businesses in the state -- including her family's own construction company -- are facing rising insurance costs that threaten to drive them out of business.
Rep. Ron Richard, R-Joplin, said without legislation to curb insurance rates, physicians would continue to be priced out the market.
"I guess we'll have more doctors moving out of the state of Missouri," Richard said.
Richard said the problem of doctors either closing their doors or setting up shop elsewhere was an issue "especially in rural areas."
House Speaker Catherine Hanaway said immediately after Holden's veto that Republicans would try to override it - a task that would require help from some minority party Democrats.
Last year, the legislature was unable to override Holden's veto of a similar bill.
Richard said he would be in favor of overriding the veto, but that currently those favoring and override were "a few votes short" in both the House and the Senate.
Bryan Stevenson, R-Webb City, said he thought the House could muster the support for an override. He was less confident in the Senate's ability to do the same.
Stevenson said he thought the lawsuit limits bill sent to Holden was "milder than last year," and should have been something the governor could have signed.
"This is an issue that simply must be addressed," Stevenson said.
Holden told reporters after his veto he did not consider the elements of the legislation sent to him to necessarily be "a deal-breaker."
The Democratic governor and Republican legislative leaders all have expressed general support for legislation intended to control the costs of medical malpractice insurance premiums, which have risen steeply in recent years.
Republicans insist the bill must include some restrictions affecting all tort lawsuits, which can also include personal injury, wrongful death and libel. But Holden says the lawsuit restrictions should be narrowly tailored to medical malpractice.
Holden also insists the legislation should include new state insurance regulations for providers of malpractice coverage. A separate bill authorizing new insurance regulations has passed the House but has not come to a Senate vote.
"The bill sent to my desk ignores the need for insurance reform and uses the special needs of doctors as camouflage to give unwarranted protections to corporate interests at the expense of injured workers, as well as men, women and children who are victimized by dangerous products," Holden said while announcing his veto.
The governor said he would submit a potential compromise bill to lawmakers covering insurance reforms and lawsuit limits only on malpractice cases.
While noting that lawmakers would look at Holden's suggestions, Hanaway nonetheless said "the governor has left us with no recourse but to override" his veto, because little time remains in the legislative session.
A veto override requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House and Senate. To be successful, Hanaway said, supporters of the bill would have to pick up the votes of 15 more people than originally voted for the measure in the House.
While Holden accused Republicans of writing a bill to protect big businesses, Republicans and business groups accused Holden of vetoing the bill to protect plaintiffs' attorneys who have given generously to his campaign.
"This is the second year in a row the governor has shut the door on Missouri employers, especially our medical professionals, for political gain," Missouri Chamber of Commerce President Dan Mehan said in a statement distributed to reporters as they left Holden's news conference.
Among Holden's chief objections to the legislation was its new limits on where tort lawsuits can be filed. Under the bill, a lawsuit could have been filed only in the judicial circuit where the injury occurred - an attempt to cut down on practice called "venue shopping" in which attorneys find reasons to file lawsuits in Kansas City or St. Louis, where juries are perceived to be more generous.
Current law also allows cases to be tried where any of the parties lives. In practical terms, that means two St. Louis residents involved in an automobile accident while in Springfield currently can file an injury lawsuit in St. Louis. But the bill would have required the lawsuit to be filed in Springfield.
The bill also would have limited the financial liability of wealthy defendants in cases were poorer co-defendants are found to be at greater fault.
For example, if a defendant found to be 30 percent liable could not afford to pay damages for lost wages, pain or suffering, then a co-defendant 40 percent at fault would have been required to pick up the tab. But a co-defendant just 20 percent at fault would not have been liable for the other party's portion of the payments, under the bill.
The legislation also would have lowered the cap on noneconomic damages - payments for pain and suffering - in medical malpractice cases to a permanent $400,000. The state had capped such damages in 1986 at $350,000 but allowed it to rise with inflation, to the current $565,000. Current law only applies the cap on noneconomic damages to doctors and hospitals, but the bill would have applied it to nursing homes as well.