While the media in North Carolina is focusing on a bill recently passed by the Senate that would cap non-economic damages in malpractice cases, a state legislator who happens to be a highly-compensated medical malpractice lawyer is quietly seeking to change the rules of evidence to let the jury see the highly prejudicial fact (and limits) of insurance coverage without the burden of press coverage letting doctors know that their situation is about to get a lot worse (h/t P.A. and W.O.). Meanwhile, trial lawyers say they plan to challenge the cap on constitutional grounds, demonstrating how reform measures have to get through three branches of government.
Anti-reform measure in North Carolina
Related Entries:
- Medical malpractice reform passes House
- HR 5
- Update on California foreign policy efforts
- Global warming lawsuits and insurance
- A separate thought on Farber-White and medical malpractice
- A shocking concession by Svorny on medical malpractice caps
- Around the web, December 15
- Spirited med-mal debate complete!
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
- New Featured Discussion: MI and Cato scholars debate med-mal
- Arafiles update
- NACDL Releases Blueprint for Grand Jury Reform
- And this is why your Michigan auto insurance is so expensive: Boertmann v. Cincinnati Insurance
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Fogel v. Farmers Group: CCAF challenges $90m fee in claims-made settlement
![]() |
| Isaac Gorodetski Project Manager, Center for Legal Policy at the Manhattan Institute igorodetski@manhattan-institute.org |
![]() |
| Laura Eyi Press Officer, Manhattan Institute leyi@manhattan-institute.org |



