All lawsuits are merely allegations until proven otherwise - the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, just as it is on the prosecution in a criminal trial. The defense has every right to ask the court to dismiss any suit as "frivolous."

But the defense has to ask that - the state can't ask it for them, and particularly for only one class of petitioner. It's effectively raising the standard of evidence required to proceed in only one kind of tort claim, and that's unconstitutional.

If you're worried about costs, you should oppose the kind of "tort reform" that the 2003 law represents and that the Chamber of Secrets is always pushing in the state - it lets insurers off the hook for lawsuits and does nothing to either improve medicine or reduce malpractice rates.

The malpractice insurance industry as it exists doesn’t make sense. Business-wise, insurers must predict their costs up to 10 years before they’re incurred and the industry is very susceptible to changes in medical practice, the market, and the number of lawsuits (which has remained fairly steady so far). For doctors, it causes pain when premiums increase and it fails to provide a sufficient incentive to reduce error. For patients, it discourages full compensation for injury. It’s a bad deal all around.

The state has the right to try to fix any problems in the interest of the public, but if a law restricts access to the courts for only some people and does no good for the public, it's not going to pass the test. That's what the part about "premiums" was about.

These companies happily pay less out in tort-reform states while continuing to collect higher premiums from doctors and encouraging the public to blame the victim or attorney for bringing frivolous lawsuits.

I agree that it's a good thing that this law was struck down, but I take issue with this comment. States with the tightest tort reform actually do generally have lower premiums. Premiums in Texas were spinning out of control until something was passed a couple years ago. Within a couple years, premiums actually started to go down, something critics of the reform swore wouldn't happen.

That doesn't mean that it's necessarily a worthwhile trade-off for a state to make and maybe there are better ways to do it, but it's a stretch to say that it hasn't had an effect on premiums. If nothing else it gives medmal insurers fewer ways to justify sky-high rates.

Disclaimer: My wife is a doctor. Texas was previous just about out of consideration for a location for her to start her practice. With medmal insurance premiums headed in the right direction, though, we're considering it. The same goes for Wyoming. Nevada, on the other hand, is going to miss out on a good doctor in a field where demand far outstrips supply. She's not in it for the money (if she was, she wouldn't be in rural medicine), but we don't want to live in a state where she'd be paying more than she would be making doing, among other things, baby deliveries.