Final report on the Ipp Review of the Law of Negligence
AMA Vice-President, Dr Trevor Mudge, said today that the AMA supports most of the recommendations of the Review of the Law of Negligence.
Dr Mudge said the Review sets out a more realistic approach to the standard of care that can be reasonably expected of competent medical practitioners.
"The report provides a comprehensive review of the law of negligence and the 'heads of damages' that comprise common law awards, and offers a template for a fair and national approach to tort law reform," Dr Mudge said.
"Recommendations include a fair and equitable approach to compensating the injured for damages suffered as a result of someone else's negligence.
"Confronted with a complex task, the Panel has attempted to grapple with the problems caused by the high long-term care costs awarded to the severely disabled by the courts.
"Their report recommends a much more suitable benchmark for the award of these costs to replace the 'gold standard' awards that courts are too often producing - and that have produced glaring inequity among the disabled in the community.
"But without the development of a national scheme for the long term care and rehabilitation of the severely disabled, the long-term care costs of the severely disabled still have the potential to cripple the medical indemnity industry. We need to remove the long-term care costs of the severely disabled from court awards.
"It would be better to introduce a fair and more equitable scheme that provides directly for the needs of those who should be compensated for severe disability from an injury. Only then could we realistically see an end to the medical indemnity crisis.
"The community expects and deserves a cooperative response involving Federal Government initiative and State and Territory Government commitment.
"Unless the desired tort law reforms apply to all claims that have not yet been commenced, their impact on indemnity premiums may arrive too late.
"The AMA also has concerns that the recommendations relating to the revised limitation periods - the timelines in which people can sue - do not provide the certainty that insurers require.
"'Discoverability' leaves the way open for an uncertain amount of time to elapse before the limitation period commences, and leaves the way open for argument and litigation to occur over the date of 'discoverability'," Dr Mudge said.
CONTACT: Sarah Crichton (02) 6270 5472 / (0419) 440 076