State Sen. Connie Williams, D-Montgomery/Delaware, and state Rep. Daylin Leach, D-Montgomery, held a joint press conference last week introducing identical bills that would allow judges to reduce the verdicts awarded in medical malpractice lawsuits.

According to the current Motion for Remittitur -- the process by which courts reduce a jury award -- a judge can reduce the verdict if the amount awarded to the plaintiff is "excessive and unconscionable as to shock the conscience of the court."

Under the new proposed bill, a judge would be allowed to look at the jury's award and apply a "reasonable" standard to determine the awards suitability, said Angela Utterer, legislative director for Sen. Williams.

Sen. Williams and Rep. Leach's legislation is a short-term solution to what Williams calls the "medical malpractice epidemic." Williams said she believes caps must be placed on non-economic damages sustained by the plaintiff, such as pain and suffering. It would take years to enact legislation addressing caps on jury awards though, and the problem needs to be addressed immediately, she added.

For a cap to be placed on non-economic related damages, Pennsylvania's state constitution would have to be amended - something that would require passage in both chambers of legislature in consecutive terms before being presented to the voters in a referendum. Under this process, the earliest a cap could be enacted is 2005.

Roger Mecum, executive vice president of the Pennsylvania Medical Society, said high insurance premiums are forcing doctors to leave the state and eroding the state's healthcare system. Mecum blames the problem facing insurance companies and doctors on excessive awards given by juries.

"This jackpot lottery mentality that the public is buying into is driving losses off the chart," he said, adding that the problem is not the frequency but the extent of the awards.

Pennsylvania is among other highly populated states enacting tort reform legislation. Various numbers have been discussed for a final cap to be placed on jury awards. The Pennsylvania Medical Society is pushing for a $250,000 cap on non-economic related damages. This was the amount settled upon in 1975 by California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. The act is often held up as an example of success or failure in tort reform, and was enacted to deal with an insurance rate crisis similar to what Pennsylvania is facing now.

John Evans, a personal injury attorney in Pittsburgh, said Pennsylvania's insurance dispute is an insurance company-created illusion, and caps would not change the situation.

"Insurance companies are going under for the same reason businesses are right now; they made bad investments and we are in a recession. Their claims history stays the same -- but they place a spin on it," Evans said. He agrees with Mecum's assessment that it is a small percentage of claims winning notoriously large settlements. However, he said it won't be solved by caps, but by an increase in the return of insurance company investments.

Thomas Brophy, a defense attorney in Philadelphia, said lowering insurance rates is a complicated issue, but would be benefited by caps.

"The bigger problem is that companies won't insure in Pennsylvania," Brophy said. "We have more excessively high awards than probably 45 other states ... judges need to be more assertive in evaluating equity."

"Non-economic related damages" is an ambiguous term and impossible to calculate, Evans said. While $250,000 is adequate in some circumstances, he said it is an insult to plaintiffs who have their lives altered due to physician error. Brophy cites the disparity in jury awards as a need for some sort of standard to be set when determining rewards in non-economic related damages. He said cases deserving litigation are settled out of court because "fear of a runaway verdict perverts litigation."

Mecum said the "sympathy winning stage tactics of talented trial lawyers" is to blame for the high premiums.

He said unless something is done, doctors will continue to leave the state, jeopardizing the future of health care in Pennsylvania.

"Insurance companies have done a remarkable job pleading their case. They are the Chamber of Commerce, Republicans and big businesses -- it's corporate America," he said.