As reported in today’s Gongwer News Service. 

SB 86 PHYSICIAN IMMUNITY  (Buehrer)  To grant qualified civil immunity to a physician who provides emergency medical services, first-aid treatment, or other emergency professional care in compliance with the federal Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act or as a result of a disaster.   Full Text   (3rd Hearing-All testimony) 

Attorney Gerald Leeseberg of Columbus contended in opposition testimony that the bill was not about the availability of medical care providers during disasters and national emergencies. "As worded, this bill provides blanket immunity to physicians providing negligent medical care to every patient in every emergency room in every hospital in this state," he said.

He said the bill defines "disaster" as including "injury, or loss of life that results from ... any act of a human." He said it would be impossible under the bill to hold physicians accountable for their negligent medical care.

Mr. Leeseberg said emergency room doctors do not need special protection, because circumstances under which they function - such as the fact that they may not have ever seen a particular patient before - are expressly taken into consideration.

He said the bill was unconstitutional to the extent that it applies to patients who die as a result of physician negligence. "This bill expressly prohibits the recovery of damages for wrongful death caused by the neglect of a physician providing medical care in an emergency, and as such, violates the Ohio Constitution," Mr. Leeseberg said.

Attorney Donald Moore of Cincinnati, whose son is an emergency physician practicing in Detroit, said the bill is designed to relieve doctors responsibility for their errors, at the expense of their victims. "Those patients who receive good care ... have no claims, and are not affected by the bill," he said. "(This) bill is designed to take away justice only from those who are hurt by substandard medical care."

Mr. Moore countered proponent claims that the immunity was needed to attract more doctors to the profession. "When I asked my son if this was valid, he said that there is no problem attracting doctors to this specialty," Mr. Moore said He said results of the March 2009 National Residency Match Day verify that all residency programs are full for ER training. "We are already producing them as fast as our current educational infrastructure can produce them," he said.

Mr. Moore said the real reason other medical specialists often choose not to accept on-call work is the likelihood that they will not be paid. A second concern is the inconvenience of scheduling. "Doctors, like everyone else, like to live in attractive places that will suit their lifestyle, please their families and pay well," he said. "Making a special law to free them from responsibility will not make them want to move to rural places or take nonpaying cases."

Chairman Seitz asked why doctors should not receive a degree of relief for providing such uncompensated care, in line with related federal law. Sen. Goodman noted that emergency room doctors must treat every patient, while lawyers do not. Sen. Schiavoni pointed out that hospitals pay ER physicians regardless of a patients financial status. The situation is different, Mr. Moore said, with specialists who must be called in on a case.
 

Kevin L. Futryk
Government Advantage Group, LLP