Some House Judiciary Committee Republicans bristle at Speaker Johnnie Byrd's push to limit attorney fees in medical malpractice cases.
By STEVE BOUSQUET
Published March 18, 2004
TALLAHASSEE - Three weeks after he compared lawmakers to sheep, House Speaker Johnnie Byrd confronted an unusual dilemma Wednesday: public opposition from fellow Republicans.
At issue is a bill Byrd supports that would limit attorneys' fees in medical malpractice cases.
The proposal is a priority of the medical lobby and was scheduled for a vote today in the House Judiciary Committee. But after opposition from Republicans on the panel put passage in doubt, it was dropped from the agenda.
A milder version will surface next week in the business-friendly House Insurance Committee, where trial lawyers have less clout.
Byrd is a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate and has received strong financial backing from doctors. He says lawyers pocket too much money from medical malpractice cases.
"Right now, we have over half of the awards going to the trial lawyer," said Byrd, a lawyer. "My opinion is that's too much. If someone is injured negligently, they definitely should receive the award, not the lawyer."
Not all of Byrd's fellow Republicans agree. At least three Republicans on the Judiciary Committee, all of them lawyers, opposed the bill, including Chairman Jeff Kottkamp, R-Cape Coral.
"From a philosophical standpoint, I have a difficult time saying we should limit anybody's ability to make a living," Kottkamp said. "Why don't I just leave it at that."
Two other Republican lawyers on the committee, Reps. Kevin Ambler of Tampa and Dennis Ross of Lakeland, oppose limiting attorneys' fees, as do the Democrats on the committee.
Facing a possible revolt within his own ranks, Byrd took the unusual step of removing the bill from the Judiciary Committee's agenda, lawmakers said. But Byrd's spokesman, Tom Denham, said Byrd did not refer the bill to another committee, "and has no plans to do so."
Kottkamp later called a reporter to say the reason the bill won't be considered is that he ran out of time to draft amendments, not because of opposition.
Kottkamp also questioned whether limiting attorneys' fees should be in the state Constitution as proposed by Rep. Baxter Troutman, R-Winter Haven. Higher limits on fees, drafted by Rep. David Simmons, R-Longwood, will be proposed as a change in law as part of a broader malpractice bill.
The maneuvering was seen by some lawmakers as another example of Byrd orchestrating an election-year agenda to boost his Senate chances. Doctors rally at the Capitol next week in support of their 2004 agenda.
"I think it's politically driven," Sen. Tom Lee, R-Brandon, said of Byrd's actions. "What's happened is he is in a position of trying to serve two masters, running a component of government and appealing to conservatives in a Republican primary. ... It's a great issue if you're trying to gin up money and support."
The bill (HJR 1337) would limit attorney's fees to $75,000 when a lawyer takes a malpractice case on a contingency fee basis and the damage award is less than $250,000. The proposal is strongly supported by the Florida Medical Association and is similar to a proposed constitutional amendment doctors are trying to get on the 2004 ballot.
Ambler called limiting contingency fees "unconstitutional price-fixing" and said it runs counter to the GOP's belief in the free market. He said contingency fees already are limited to 40 percent of a judgment when a case goes to trial.
"I don't see clients ripping down the doors of the Capitol saying they're being ripped off," Ambler said.
Caps on contingency fees would put malpractice victims at a disadvantage, Ambler said, because defendants - such as doctors and hospitals - can afford high-priced lawyers. In a contingency fee case, a lawyer invests time and money with the hope of a big payday.
Ambler said he spent six years and $400,000 of his own money on a single case. If he lost, he would receive nothing.
A fourth House Republican, Rep. Bill Galvano of Bradenton, also a lawyer, said he opposes limiting legal fees. He contradicted Byrd's claim that lawyers pocket more than half of an award.
Some Republicans were disappointed that Byrd would yank the bill from a committee that normally considers all legislation affecting the legal profession.
"I think the issue deserves to be debated in the Judiciary Committee," Ross said. "It concerns lawyers."
- Times staff writer Lucy Morgan contributed to this report.
