Mohave Daily News: State

LAS VEGAS (AP) - As 59-year-old Richard Krikalo lumbers through the office of a junkyard he helps manage, he bumps into a desk and clips a wastebasket with his right leg.

Krikalo is almost blind in his right eye and has trouble with depth perception and peripheral vision.

‘‘I go to the buffet and bump into people carrying food,'' he growls, shaking his head, his static right eye unable to follow his blinking left one. ‘‘It's embarrassing. The only time I don't have to worry about bumping into something is when I'm in bed.''

Krikalo blames a doctor for a botched retina reattachment operation in August 2007. But lawyers tell him it's economically unfeasible to litigate his complicated case, or that time limitations are an issue.

For that, he blames medical malpractice reforms of the 2004 Nevada Legislature.

‘‘With this new malpractice law in place, I can't even get a lawyer to go after who's responsible for what happened,'' the Las Vegas resident said, displaying rejection letters from attorneys. ‘‘There's hardly any protection for the consumer any more. Now everything is in favor of doctors.''

Krikalo says he hates frivolous lawsuits, but says someone who loses his eyesight in surgery gone awry should be able to find a lawyer to gain compensation for what he's lost.

Voters overwhelmingly approved Question 3 in 2004. Physicians called it the ‘‘Keep Our Doctors In Nevada'' initiative.

Doctors love it. They have seen dramatic savings on malpractice insurance. Insurance companies profit. They don't have to make large pay outs. Attorneys hate it. They believe a potentially lucrative part of their business is cut off.

Some lawmakers wonder whether the law should be amended again, to protect the public.

At the heart of the varied positions is a cap of $350,000 on damages for pain and suffering in all cases.

Children, homemakers, seniors and people such as Krikalo who are able to work despite injury have no loss of future earnings to calculate. Essentially, any malpractice awards they win would come out of the $350,000 allocated for pain and suffering, a sum divvied between the attorney and the client.

In the past, juries would sometimes award seven-figure judgments for pain and suffering to grieving parents who lost a child to medical negligence or to an individual whose quality of life had changed because of a physician's mistake.

Now Nevadans who believe they have claims may receive letters from attorneys similar to one Krikalo received from an attorney in July of this year: ‘‘Unfortunately, the ($350,000) limit on damages makes it economically unfeasible to pursue this matter given the complicated nature of the case.''

The reform also cut from two years to one the time limit for filing malpractice claims.

Krikalo bumped against that when he contacted another local attorney.

‘‘It appears that the time to file your case has already expired, or will expire shortly,'' the lawyer wrote.

Physicians have seen malpractice insurance costs drop 20 percent to 30 percent since the 2004 reforms. They believe trial lawyers abuse the system and file frivolous claims hoping for settlements or unreasonably large jury awards.

‘‘The morale of physicians is much improved,'' said Dr. Jerry Jones, Clark County Medical Association president. ‘‘They're much happier doing medicine now and our doctors are staying in Nevada.''