- Articles (5)
- Aviation Accident (2)
- Birth injury (6)
- Bus Accidents (5)
- Car Accidents (208)
- Drunk Driving Accidents (4)
- Firm News (40)
- Medical Malpractice (104)
- Medication Errors (1)
- Personal Injury (101)
- Premises Liability (2)
- Product Liability (22)
- Railroad Accidents (1)
- Tort Reform (5)
- Truck Accidents (58)
- Workplace Accidents (12)
- Wrongful Death (46)
Smart Growth America, an organization that focuses on research, advocacy and bringing smart growth practices to ...
Attorney Daniel L. Clayton Named 2018 "Lawyer of the Year", Selected to the 2018 List of The Best Lawyers in America© With Attorneys Randall L. Kinnard, Mark S. Beveridge and Mary Ellen Morris
We are proud to announce that Kinnard, Clayton & Beveridge partner Daniel L. Clayton was named the 2018 Nashville ...
We are excited to announce that attorney Jenney Keaty was selected to take part in the Tennessee Bar Association’s (TBA) ...
An article recently published by the Tennessean reports that a single building inspector’s mistake allowed at least 85 ...
The Impact of Gov Haslam's Tort Reform Bill on Medical Malpractice Cases
Posted By Kinnard, Clayton & Beveridge || Jul 20, 2011
I am speaking today on the Impact of Gov. Haslam's Tort Reform Bill on Medical Malpractice Cases. I am doing this seminar, along with Steve Anderson, for the Nashville Bar Association. We will be discussing the 750,000 caps on damages and the $1,000,000 cap on catastrophic damages. For more information, visit The Impact of Gov Haslam's Tort Reform Bill on Medical Malpractice Cases.
There are several parts of this bill that are disturbing.
First, the bill was passed under the political mantra of "job creation." However, not one expert testified before the committee that a job would be created by passing this law. Next, the sentaors discussed how the caps would give the jury good guidance and we could have more predictability in our jury verdicts. Yet, the caps are kept a secret from the jury. Finally, if a person suffers a spinal cord injury and can no longer walk, then the legislature has acknowledged that person may be catastrohpically injured. However, if a child suffers a severe brain injury from a loss of oxygen, and can no longer walk, talk and is fed through a tube, that injury is not elgible for the catastrophic exception. Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?