The rare rebuke from fellow Republicans comes over his proposal to limit attorneys' fees in medical malpractice cases.
By STEVE BOUSQUET
Published March 19, 2004
TALLAHASSEE - Facing resistance from his fellow Republicans, House Speaker Johnnie Byrd on Thursday conceded that his plan to cap attorney fees in malpractice cases is a lost cause this year.
It was a rare defeat for the powerful Plant City lawmaker, but Byrd had no choice. He faces a quiet rebellion from rank-and-file Republicans, several of whom resent what they view as an agenda shaped largely by Byrd's candidacy for the U.S. Senate.
Three Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee, including its chairman, Rep. Jeff Kottkamp, R-Cape Coral, opposed the bill. The committee spared Byrd the embarrassment of a defeat Thursday by not taking up the bill. The three Republicans, all lawyers, were poised to reject the bill, one of Byrd's priorities.
"Obviously, there are some attorneys on the Judiciary Committee who are having trouble getting their arms around this issue, because they make their living as attorneys," Byrd said. "I think, at this point, it's probably an issue that won't move forward this session."
Rep. Kevin Ambler, R-Tampa, one of the recalcitrant Republicans, called limits on attorney fees "unconstitutional price-fixing that would lead to a denial of access to the courts."
Limiting attorney fees is considered popular among Republican primary voters and is a high priority of the Florida Medical Association.
The FMA formed a separate political committee to collect petitions to put the issue before voters in the November ballot, and many doctors have donated to Byrd's Senate campaign.
Asked about those donations, Byrd said: "If you believe in curtailing the predatory lawsuit industry, then you should contribute to my campaign."
However, opposition mushroomed from the business community, which frequently is at odds with the trial lawyers. Several leading business lobbies, including Associated Industries of Florida, opposed the bill, arguing it was premature because new malpractice reforms took effect just last January.
In a letter to Florida doctors, AIF president Jon Shebel called the FMA proposal "the anti-lawyer amendment" that was "unsupportable," "counterproductive" and "a very dangerous endeavor."
Byrd's inability to corral enough votes in the House was another sign of trouble for a House speaker who angered House members just before the start of the 2004 Legislature when he compared them to sheep.
As controversy swirled, Byrd called two of the Republican opponents separately to his fourth-floor office Wednesday. One of them, Rep. Dennis Ross, R-Lakeland, said he did not expect any retribution.
"I think the speaker's probably disappointed with me, but he hasn't done or said anything that I'm aware of," Ross said.
Beyond lacking a sure vote in a key committee, Byrd also seems to have misjudged the mood in the Capitol. Senate President Jim King, R-Jacksonville, said that after six months of often-bitter debate on malpractice reforms a year ago, lawmakers don't want to discuss it again.
"The zeal for jumping into a medical malpractice debate again is less than overwhelming in the Senate," King said.
Asked why he thought Byrd was pushing the issue, King referred indirectly to Byrd's Senate candidacy. "It probably plays well in Sheboygan," King said.
As a U.S. Senate candidate, Byrd has criticized lawyers as a "predatory lawsuit industry" that he blames partly for skyrocketing health care costs. A lawyer himself, Byrd embraced a proposal by the Florida Medical Association that would cap a lawyer's fee at 30 percent of the first $250,000 of a contingency fee case, or $75,000.
Personal injury lawyers take malpractice cases on a contingency fee basis because clients cannot afford to pay large fees up front. In a contingency fee case, the attorney's fees and expenses depend on a settlement or a victory at trial, and are limited in most cases by the Florida Supreme Court.
Trial lawyers were happy the fee cap was never considered. Paul Jess, a lobbyist for the Academy of Florida Trial Lawyers, said there's "no reason" for the Legislature to take up the issue because the FMA is pursuing a ballot initiative.
"I don't know why the speaker decided not to go forward, but we're very pleased," Jess said. "We see no reason for it."
