Malpractice Caps Just and Reasonable

* The letter of Melanie R. Blum (April 2) demands a response. She states that 90% of all malpractice cases end in a verdict for the doctor because the jury is biased toward the medical profession. This is nonsense. The reason in most cases is that there is no guilt.

Doctors, she says, settle because they have nothing to lose. Not true! An award over a certain amount will increase premium payments for malpractice insurance and will be noted by the Board of Quality Medical Assurance, which oversees medical licensure. In many cases, the doctor is coerced to settle out of court because the insurance company finds it cheaper to settle than to represent the physician--though they appreciated that the doctor is not guilty. Going to court also means not being in the office or in the operating room for many days at a time.

The $250,000 cap that Blum objects to is just and reasonable when one considers how much the family of a member of the armed forces receives when the loved one is killed in action. In reality, the number of people who would receive more than the cap is not that many. The truth is just this: a cap on payment limits the financial gain to the lawyers. This is why they keep complaining.

LEONARD A. ZIVITZ, M.D. (Retired)

Fullerton