Dear Editor,

I read the Dec. 31 editorial "Caution on malpractice cap" as an opinion that finally brings home the problems inherent with capping malpractice awards and ending awards for pain and suffering.

Such awards compensate someone who is legitimately and seriously injured. To claim that they are obsolete, as Paul Mulshine did recently, is to say that constitutional guarantees designed to provide fair access to the courts, and just compensation for the full extent of injuries, are also obsolete.

According to the Administrative Office of the Courts, there has been an 18% reduction in the number of medical malpractice lawsuits filed over the past four years, and doctors prevail in most of these cases. When there is a verdict in favor of the injured party, it is because a jury, made up of members of the public, has decided that malpractice was committed, not an attorney. In addition, it has been alleged that increases in doctors' professional liability premiums are more the result of bad business decisions by insurers than losses due to malpractice verdicts.

A study commission made up of all interested parties including the public, should be established immediately to thoroughly and critically examine this difficult problem. Reform should come only after due deliberation and consideration of all issues. Access to care should not compete with access to justice.