APOLOGIES

Lawmakers can't force physicians to give patients injured in their care an explanation and apology. But a bill approved by the Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee on Thursday may encourage it.

Sen. Dave Thomas, an attorney, wants to prevent sympathetic doctors from having their statements used against them in court. He points to states where research has shown a reduction in litigation and attorney fees for health care providers without impacting how much patients receive in court.

SB41 would protect any physician's "statement, affirmation, gesture, or conduct" expressing "apology, sympathy, commiseration, condolence, compassion; a general sense of benevolence; or describes: the sequence of events relating to the unanticipated outcome of medical care; the significance of events; or both."

Thomas, R-South Weber, said he has already modified the bill following summer debate and input from groups including the Utah Trial Lawyers Association (UTLA). "I believe all legitimate concerns have been addressed," he said Thursday. Yet the bill attracted a slew of attorneys and lobbyists to speak at the committee meeting.

Sen. Al Mansell, R-Sandy, asked whether the legislation would dramatically change things for plaintiffs' attorneys. With or without a physician's explanation to go on, they must still investigate and find support for their clients' case, he said.

An attorney representing the group said the bill is still flawed.

"The problem is they could say that to the patient, hoping there would be no litigation filed," said Charles Thronson. "If there is litigation filed, they can sit in a deposition under oath and say, 'I never said that' and there's not one thing we can do about it. That central issue is the problem we have with this."