Gov. Jim Doyle approved a measure Wednesday reinstating medical non-economic caps of $750,000 in medical malpractice lawsuits.

The controversial initiative, Assembly Bill 1073, has sparked debate across the state, as supporters and opponents argued the effects of medical malpractice caps.

"It's a good thing for Wisconsin that we have caps back in," said Mike Prentiss, spokesperson for bill cosponsor Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau. "Hopefully, we'll be able to bring good doctors into the state and keep them here."

According to Prentiss and other cap supporters, limits on pain and suffering awards are needed to ensure the stability health-care providers seek when they are considering where to offer their expertise.

Cap opponents, however, argue such caps compromise the needs of medical malpractice victims and point to last year's state Supreme Court decision to overturn a similar cap due to its arbitrary nature.

Since Doyle's approval of the new $750,000 cap, the Wisconsin Academy of Trial Lawyers has pledged to challenge the limit in court, maintaining it is no more constitutional than the overturned cap of $445,755.

"The new law signed treat[s] the most severely injured patients unequally, denying their right to a jury trial and arbitrarily limiting the remedy for a wrong done to them," WATL President Daniel A. Rottier said in a release.

Although Doyle vetoed a cap proposal last December on grounds of unconstitutionality, he said in a release the new cap has a better chance of being upheld than the last cap he vetoed.

"I've always said that I support a reasonable cap on damage, but that it should be one that has at least a chance of being upheld in the state Supreme Court," he said. "The Court will have to make its own decision, but I believe this bill represents a reasonable compromise."

While the governor remains uncertain, Prentiss said Doyle may not have had any choice but to sign the bill, as enough lawmakers voted in favor AB 1073 to overturn a gubernatorial veto.

Prentiss added he is also happy with the compromise, although he would have preferred the vetoed cap of $450,000 for adults and $550,000 for minors.

"We thought that the version of the caps that we had passed earlier this session met the Supreme Court's challenge," he said. "But at the end of the day, the most important thing is getting a meaningful cap into place."

The originally proposed cap was shot down earlier this year after the state Assembly failed to override the governor's veto.