Author: Neil Vidmar
Publisher: University of Michigan Press
Release Date: 1997
In this landmark book, Neil Vidmar looks beyond the common perceptions of medical malpractice litigation and finds a system that is fair, impartial, and intelligent. Firmly grounded in a wealth of empirical data, the author presents a fresh look at a civil jury system that has been maligned as out-of-touch, capricious, and disposed to awarding exorbitant, unjustified amounts to plaintiffs whenever they have the opportunity. In an era when tort reform is high on the congressional agenda, Medical Malpractice and the American Jury is almost alone in voicing reason and fact. Written in a thoroughly inviting, jargon-free style, Medical Malpractice and the American Jury places those cases that go to trial in the broader context of litigation, noting that only about ten percent of malpractice cases ever result in trials. Of those that do go to trial, the author notes, more than two out of three cases are decided in the doctor's favor--repudiating the view that jurors are inherently biased against doctors and are motivated more by sympathy for the plaintiff than by the facts of the case. Neil Vidmar comprehensively addresses all the claims that have been leveled against the performance of malpractice juries. For example, he compares actual jury decisions on negligence with neutral physicians' ratings of whether negligence occurred in the medical treatment and finds a remarkable consistency--repudiating the view that jurors are unable to understand experts or uncritically defer to their opinion. "Medical Malpractice and the American Jury is quite simply the most compelling, comprehensive examination of the American jury system yet written. It brings reason and fact to the debate in a way that puts the lie to the many myths surrounding medical negligence cases. For anyone genuinely interested in just solutions, this book should be required reading. To act in ignorance of its findings invites disaster." --Trial "For anyone really interested in the evidence about the daily grind of the courthouse mill, Neil Vidmar's Medical Malpractice and the American Jury is a good place to start." --Washington Post Book World Neil Vidmar is Professor of Social Science and Law, Duke Law School, and Professor of Psychology, Duke University.
Author: Neil Vidmar
Release Date: 2007
Although the right to trial by jury is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, in recent years both criminal and civil juries have been criticized as incompetent, biased, and irresponsible. For example, the O.J. Simpson criminal jury’s verdict produced a racial divide in opinions about that trial. And many Americans still hold strong views about the jury that awarded millions of dollars to a woman who spilled a cup of McDonald's coffee on herself. It’s said that there are "judicial hellholes" where local juries provide "jackpot justice" in medical malpractice and product liability cases with corporate defendants. Are these claims valid? This monumental and comprehensive volume reviews over fifty years of empirical research on civil and criminal juries and returns a verdict that strongly supports the jury system. Rather than relying on anecdotes, Vidmar and Hans—renowned scholars of the jury system—place the jury system in its historical and contemporary context, giving the stories behind important trials while providing fact-based answers to critical questions. How do juries make decisions and how do their verdicts compare to those of trial judges and technical experts? What roles do jury consultants play in influencing trial outcomes? Can juries understand complex expert testimony? Under which circumstances do capital juries decide to sentence a defendant to die? Are juries biased against doctors and big business? Should juries be allowed to give punitive damages? How do juries respond to the insanity defense? Do jurors ignore the law? Finally, the authors consider various suggestions for improving the way that juries are asked to carry out their duties. After briefly comparing the American jury to its counterparts in other nations, they conclude that our jury system, despite occasional problems, is, on balance, fair and democratic, and should remain an indispensable component of the judicial process for the foreseeable future.
Author: William M. Sage
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Release Date: 2006-06-12
Medical malpractice lawsuits are common and controversial in the United States. Since early 2002, doctors' insurance premiums for malpractice coverage have soared. As Congress and state governments debate laws intended to stabilize the cost of insurance, doctors continue to blame lawyers and lawyers continue to blame doctors and insurance companies. This book, which is the capstone of three years' comprehensive research funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, goes well beyond the conventional debate over tort reform and connects medical liability to broader trends and goals in American health policy. Contributions from leading figures in health law and policy marshal the best available information, present new empirical evidence, and offer cutting-edge analysis of potential reforms involving patient safety, liability insurance and tort litigation.
Author: Tom Baker
Publisher: University of Chicago Press
Release Date: 2008-09-15
American health care is in crisis because of exploding medical malpractice litigation. Insurance premiums for doctors and malpractice lawsuits are skyrocketing, rendering doctors both afraid and unable to afford to continue to practice medicine. Undeserving victims sue at the drop of a hat, egged on by greedy lawyers, and receive eye-popping awards that insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors themselves struggle to pay. The plaintiffs and lawyers always win; doctors, and the nonlitigious, always lose; and affordable health care is the real victim. This, according to Tom Baker, is the myth of medical malpractice, and as a reality check he offers The Medical Malpractice Myth, a stunning dismantling of this familiar, but inaccurate, picture of the health care industry. Are there too many medical malpractice suits? No, according to Baker; there is actually a great deal more medical malpractice, with only a fraction of the cases ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Is too much litigation to blame for the malpractice insurance crisis? No, for that we can look to financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry. Are these lawsuits frivolous? Very rarely. Point by point, Baker—a leading authority on insurance and law—pulls together the research that demolishes the myths that have taken hold about medical malpractice and suggests a series of legal reforms that would help doctors manage malpractice insurance while also improving patient safety and medical accountability. President Bush has made medical malpractice reform a priority in his last term in office, but if history is any indication, legislative reform would only worsen the situation and perpetuate the gross misunderstanding of it. The debate surely will be transformed by The Medical Malpractice Myth, a book aimed squarely at general readers but with radical conclusions that speak to the highest level of domestic policymaking.
Author: S Y Tan
Publisher: World Scientific Publishing Company
Release Date: 2006-01-23
This textbook is about the law of medical malpractice and how to prevent a malpractice lawsuit. It grew out of an earlier book covering medical negligence in Singapore. The book's primary goal is to provide a clear and simple explanation of the American law of medical malpractice, informed consent and risk management. Written with the clinician in mind, it is legally uncomplicated without being overly simplistic. The book is as much about medicine as it is about law; above all, it is about patients. It is written with the fervent belief that with better education, there will emerge a better appreciation of the expectations of the patient — often unmet — and the standards of the legal system — often misunderstood. Fewer lawsuits and improved patient care will hopefully follow. The book is in five sections. The first covers the law of malpractice and informed consent while the second covers risk management with chapters on confidentiality, communication and risk management tips. Section III is a single chapter on reforming the system, and discusses both medical and legal proposals. The subject of tort reforms is covered in this chapter. A review section consisting of 35 multiple choice questions and answers constitutes Section IV. The book concludes with a glossary of legal terms.
Author: Paul C. Weiler
Publisher: Harvard University Press
Release Date: 1993-01
A Measure of Malpractice tells the story and presents the results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study, the largest and most comprehensive investigation ever undertaken of the performance of the medical malpractice system. The Harvard study was commissioned by the government of New York in 1986, in the midst of a malpractice crisis that had driven insurance premiums for surgeons and obstetricians in New York City to nearly $200,000 a year. The Harvard-based team of doctors, lawyers, economists, and statisticians set out to investigate what was actually happening to patients in hospitals and to doctors in courtrooms, launching a far more informed debate about the future of medical liability in the 1990s. Careful analysis of the medical records of 30,000 patients hospitalized in 1984 showed that approximately one in twenty-five patients suffered a disabling medical injury, one quarter of these as a result of the negligence of a doctor or other provider. After assembling all the malpractice claims filed in New York State since 1975, the authors found that just one in eight patients who had been victims of negligence actually filed a malpractice claim, and more than two-thirds of these claims were filed by the wrong patients. The study team then interviewed injured patients in the sample to discover the actual financial loss they had experienced: the key finding was that for roughly the same dollar amount now being spent on a tort system that compensates only a handful of victims, it would be possible to fund comprehensive disability insurance for all patients significantly disabled by a medical accident. The authors, who came to the project from very different perspectives about the present malpractice system, are now in agreement about the value of a new model of medical liability. Rather than merely tinker with the current system which fixes primary legal responsibility on individual doctors who can be proved medically negligent-legislatures should encourage health care organizations to take responsibility for the financial losses of all patients injured in their care.
Author: Richard E. Shandell
Publisher: Law Journal Press
Release Date: 2018-09-28
The Preparation and Trial of Medical Malpractice Cases treats a case as a continuous process, from interviewing the client to closing argument. It offers comprehensive coverage of the questions surrounding health maintenance organizations, including case law on the right to sue an HMO as well as its participating physicians. You'll find discussion of: how to recognize a meritorious case; the doctrine of alternative liability; the evidentiary value of FDA approval or non-approval; the continuing treatment doctrine; state statutes regarding motion practice; malpractice liability of alternative medical practitioners; the admissibility of evidence comparing physicians' risk statistics to those of other physicians; use of expert testimony to establish res ipsa loquitur in negligence; the modified standard of proximate cause when a physician's negligence exacerbates a patient's existing condition; violation of the duty to disclose information; contributory negligence in informed consent; distinguishing between medical malpractice and ordinary negligence; liability of nurses; and more. Appendices demonstrate how to analyze a medical brief, depose and examine the defendant physician, and elicit testimony from your own expert witness. Also included are a sample Bill of Particulars, a sample jury charge and a list of Web sites to assist your medical research.
Author: Kenneth De Ville
Publisher: NYU Press
Release Date: 1992-04-01
Highly readable . . . . interdisciplinary history of a high order. -- The Historian Well-written and superbly documented . . . . Both physicians and lawyers will find this book useful and fascinating. -- Journal of the American Medical Association This is the first book-length historical study of medical malpractice in 19th-century America and it is exceedingly well done . . . . The author reveals that, beginning in the 1840s, Americans began to initiate malpractice lawsuits against their physicians and surgeons. Among the reasons for this development were the decline in the belief in divine providence, increased competition between physicians and medical sects, and advances in medical science that led to unrealistically high expectations of the ability of physicians to cure . . . . This book is well written, often entertaining and witty, and is historically accurate, based on the best secondary, as well as primary sources from the time period. Highly recommended. -- Choice Adept at not only traditional historical research but also cultural studies, the author treats the reader to an intriguing discussion of how 19th-century Americans came truly to see their bodies differently . . . . a sophisticated new standard in the field of malpractice history. -- The Journal of the Early Republic By far the best compilation and analysis of early medical malpractice cases I have seen . . . . this excellently crafted study is bound to be of interest to a large number of readers. -- James C. Mohr, author of Abortion in America: The Origins and Evolution of a National Policy
Author: Stephen Daniels
Publisher: Northwestern University Press
Release Date: 1995
Stephen Daniels and Joanne Martin have analyzed patterns in jury verdicts in a number of substantive legal areas, including medical malpractice, products liability, and punitive damages, against the background of the larger political and academic debate over tort reform. Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform brings together and summarizes the authors' extensive empirical research on civil jury verdicts in the context of that debate. Some commentators are arguing that there is a substantial gap between the image of juries and civil justice that is driving tort reform and what is known of the reality of the civil justice system. The authors use their discussion of juries not simply to help inform the policy debate but to analyze tort reform as a public policy issue for what it tells about the policy process itself.
Author: Carl T. Bogus
Publisher: NYU Press
Release Date: 2003-07-01
Judging by the frequency with which it makes an appearance in television news shows and late night stand up routines, the frivolous lawsuit has become part and parcel of our national culture. A woman sues McDonald’s because she was scalded when she spilled her coffee. Thousands file lawsuits claiming they were injured by Agent Orange, silicone breast implants, or Bendectin although scientists report these substances do not cause the diseases in question. The United States, conventional wisdom has it, is a hyperlitigious society, propelled by avaricious lawyers, harebrained judges, and runaway juries. Lawsuits waste money and time and, moreover, many are simply groundless. Carl T. Bogus is not so sure. In Why Lawsuits Are Good for America, Bogus argues that common law works far better than commonly understood. Indeed, Bogus contends that while the system can and occasionally does produce “wrong” results, it is very difficult for it to make flatly irrational decisions. Blending history, theory, empirical data, and colorful case studies, Bogus explains why the common law, rather than being outdated, may be more necessary than ever. As Bogus sees it, the common law is an essential adjunct to governmental regulation—essential, in part, because it is not as easily manipulated by big business. Meanwhile, big business has launched an all out war on the common law. “Tort reform”—measures designed to make more difficult for individuals to sue corporations—one of the ten proposals in the Republican Contract With America, and George W. Bush’s first major initiative as Governor of Texas. And much of what we have come to believe about the system comes from a coordinated propaganda effort by big business and its allies. Bogus makes a compelling case for the necessity of safeguarding the system from current assaults. Why Lawsuits Are Good for America provides broad historical overviews of the development of American common law, torts, products liability, as well as fresh and provocative arguments about the role of the system of “disciplined democracy” in the twenty-first century.
Fully updated for this new edition, Health Care Politics and Policy in America combines background and context for the evolution of U.S. health care policy with analysis of recent trends and current issues. The book introduces public policy students to the complex array of health care issues, and health care professionals to the study of public policy. It provides comprehensive coverage of policy issues related to health care at the federal, state, and provider/patient levels, from Medicare and Medicaid funding and managed care to medical liability law and ongoing debates over the beginning of life and end-of-life decisions. Health Care Politics and Policy in America successfully integrates political, ethical, economic, legal, technological, and medical factors in an issue-focused survey of U.S. health care policy. It includes a chronology of health care-policy-related events and legislation from 1798 through 2005, and an appendix comparing medical malpractice tort laws state-by-state.
Author: Thomas H. Cohen
Publisher: DIANE Publishing
Release Date: 2009
Discusses tort cases concluded by a bench or jury trial in a national sample of jurisdictions in 2005. Topics include: the types of tort cases that proceed to trial, the differences between tort cases adjudicated by judges and juries, and the types of plaintiffs and defendants represented in tort trials. Also covers plaintiff win rates, punitive damages, and the final award amounts generated in tort trial litigation. Trends are examined in tort trial litigation in the nation¿s 75 most populous counties. The report showed that together, bench and jury trials accounted for an estimated 4% of all tort dispositions in 2005. Punitive damages were sought in 9% of tort trials with plaintiff winners. The median punitive damage award was $55,000. Charts and tables.
Author: Peter De Cruz
Release Date: 2013-03-04
This work provides a thematic, comparative and accessible analysis of key areas of healthcare law in England and Wales, comparing these primarily with various selected common law and civil law jurisdictions, within a framework of law and medical ethics.
Author: Neal C. Hogan
Publisher: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC
Release Date: 2003
In 1900 medical malpractice was an obscure field, with few cases, small damages, and little case law. Across the century malpractice became a major component of tort litigation and created entire industries of insurance, expert witnesses, and dedicated malpractice attorneys. Concepts from the legal profession, such as "the standard of care" collided with medical practice. The introduction of new medical technologies led to dramatic breakthroughs in care but created confusion over what appropriate care entailed. New rulings on plaintiff's rights in tort law expanded a patient's ability to sue. Juries, courts, physicians, hospitals, medical societies, insurance firms, and legislators were caught in a collision of medicine, law, and technology. No single constituency presses malpractice forward, rather each constituency in turn drove the issue to a crisis in the 1970s.