{"id":3589,"date":"2004-02-17T09:00:00","date_gmt":"2004-02-17T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/02\/17\/ore-doctors-prescribe-low-fee"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:59:01","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:59:01","slug":"ore-doctors-prescribe-low-fee-diet-for-pi-lawyers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/02\/17\/ore-doctors-prescribe-low-fee-diet-for-pi-lawyers\/","title":{"rendered":"Ore. Doctors Prescribe Low-Fee Diet for p\/i Lawyers"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/a><\/p>\n


\n

The most costly Oregon initiative battle ever is expected this year, as medical doctors seek to limit lawyer fees to $100,000 in medical malpractice cases (plus expenses).  The Oregonian<\/A> <\/EM>reported on February 13 that the campaign is sponsored by a committee called Oregonians for Quality, Affordable and Reliable Health Care, with funds mostly from doctors and many health care organizations and institutions.  <\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n
<\/FONT> <\/DIV>
\n
According to the Oregonian<\/EM> and the AP, a lobbyist for the Oregon Trial lawyers Association<\/A> says it’s confident of victory because<\/FONT><\/DIV>
\n

\n

\n

[T]hey don’t expect voters to support the proposal. They point out that a 2000 ballot measure allowing the Legislature to limit the recovery of damages in civil “cases failed, getting only one-quarter of the vote. <\/FONT><\/P>
\n

“‘It’ll be injured people who will most object to this ballot measure because if you deny people access to the justice system, you can’t compensate them for injuries they received,’ said Alan Tresidder, a lobbyist for the trial lawyers’ group.” <\/FONT><\/P><\/DIV><\/BLOCKQUOTE>
\n

An Oct. 2003 newsletter<\/A> by the Oregon Associstion of Hospitals and Health Systems says the draft ballot titles are worded as follows:<\/FONT>
<\/FONT><\/FONT><\/P>
\n