Sandoval Co. lawmakers hear medical malpractice bill

SANTA FE — Two local lawmakers could not agree Friday on whether a bill proposing changes to the state's medical malpractice law should move out of committee.

Reps. Alan Martinez, a Republican, voted against and Kathleen Cates, a Democrat, voted for House Bill 99 during a hearing of the House Health and Human Services Committee, which voted 7-3 to approve the measure. At least one Rio Rancho resident spoke against HB99.

The legislation proposes capping punitive damages for hospitals at $6 million. There is currently no cap on these types of damages, leading to an "unprecedented" doctor shortage throughout the state and a lack of patient access to care, said the bill's sponsor, Rep. Christine Chandler, D-Sandoval County, during the hearing. Though she had conversations with numerous stakeholders in crafting the bill, Chandler noted not everyone's comments were constructive.

"I encourage all of us to focus on the issue and move forward beyond the rhetoric that all of us have been embracing," Chandler said. 

Though her bill passed committee with three amendments, the decision did not come without a heated discussion by committee members, including Martinez, who moved to table an amendment.

His hang-up was over an amendment brought by Rep. Elizabeth "Liz" Thomson, a Democrat. The amendment led Martinez to ask what she was trying to change about the legislation if it already protects local hospitals.

Thomson responded that she is trying to protect local hospitals and not out-of-state corporations.

The exchange led Martinez to share his view that the bill already has "good negotiated language" and there is no need for an amendment. 

"That was what we promised our constituents — we were going to protect medical malpractice," Martinez said. "You have taken a good negotiated bill and poisoned it with this amendment."

Thomson responded Martinez's motion would be considered at the end of committee discussion. The motion failed 6-4, including a "no" vote by Cates. The disputed amendment then passed 6-4, with Martinez voting "no."

Following several other lawmakers' critique of the bill, Cates thanked Chandler for her bill.

"This is obviously a very thoughtful and thought-out bill," Cates said. "It's not perfect, but it's very thoughtful."

She touched on the "providers" amendment, asking  Thomson whether it protected "all independent doctors regardless of where their work setting is" from punitive damages.

Thomson said the amendment protects each provider, regardless of where they work.

Cates also asked whether Chandler's amendment exempts clinics and locally owned medical systems from the punitive damage cap.

Thomson responded that, in fact, those entities are covered under the cap.

Echoing stories told by lawmakers about the medical system, Cates noted that her father died a "painful death" from cancer — not before he was misdiagnosed by a doctor and told to "go home."

"(The doctor) never touched him; I don't know why," Cates said, "Maybe he's a doctor who worked for a corporation that was told he can only spend 15 minutes with him. By the time we found the tumor, it was too late."

She doesn't know if litigation holds medical systems accountable.

"I think that's the controversy. I don't know if it does or not," Cates said.

The bill now moves to the House Judiciary Committee.