Academy, FMA square off over amendments.

The Florida Supreme Court heard oral arguments in what Justice Barbara Pariente described as "tit for tat" proposed constitutional amendments being advanced by the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers and the Florida Medical Association.

The academy has proposed three amendments, being sponsored by its political committee Floridians for Patient Protection. One would revoke the license of any doctor who loses three malpractice or disciplinary judgments; the second would give patients access to confidential peer reviews and adverse incident reports (which now are immune even from subpoenas); and the third would require doctors to charge the same rate for the same services for all patients. Working through its political committee--Citizens for a Fair Share-the FMA's proposed amendment would limit how much money lawyers can make in a medical liability case.

Over two days of arguments June 7-8, the court reviewed each of the four amendments to ensure that they do not contain more than one subject, and that the ballot title and summary accurately reflect the content of the amendment.

Late on the second day of arguments, Justice Pariente marveled that the lawyers involved advanced the same arguments on consecutive days, depending on whose amendment was before the court. Each side represented their amendments as simple and straightforward while characterizing the other's as ambiguous or misleading.

"I am having trouble distinguishing the argument today from the argument yesterday, as far as this seems like four amendments that are going to perhaps cause a great deal of litigation if they are passed," Pariente said.

Three Strikes

One of the AFTL's amendments would amend the constitution to bar licensure of any physician found to have committed three or more incidents of malpractice. The ballot title reads "Public Protection from Repeated Medical Malpractice." The ballot summary states: "Current law allows medical doctors who have committed repeated malpractice to be licensed to practice medicine in Florida. This amendment prohibits medical doctors who have been found to have committed three or more incidents of medical malpractice from being licensed to practice medicine in Florida."

Justice Charles Wells asked if that meant that if a doctor who had three "friendly suits" go to judgment 40 years ago and had no subsequent malpractice incidents would lose his or her license if the amendment passed. And in contrast, if a doctor who settled three malpractice cases in 1990s, without going to judgment, would be allowed to continue to practice.

"That is correct, your honor," said Timothy McLendon of Gainesville, representing Floridians for Patient...