nach oben

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®

Erschienen in:

01.02.2009 | Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths

verfasst von: Neil Vidmar, JD

Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Ausgabe 2/2009

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled for much less than the verdicts.

American Medical Association. Medical liability reform: Q&A. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/399/mlr_tp.pdf. Accessed September 29, 2008.

American Medical Association. Medical liability reform. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/7861.html. Accessed February 4, 2008.

Baker T. Blood money, new money and the moral code of the personal injury bar. Law & Soc’y Rev. 2002;35:257–319.

Baker T. The Medical Malpractice Myth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2005:22–44, 45–67.

Bazzoli F. New AMA report cites effectiveness of malpractice award limits. Health Care Finance News, 02/06/08. Available at: http://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/story.cms?id=7621. Accessed August 6, 2008.

Bovbjerg R, Sloan F, Blumstein J. Valuing life and limb in tort: scheduling “pain and suffering.” NW UL Rev. 1989;83:908–976.

Cohen T. Tort trials and verdicts in large counties. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin #NCJ 206240; November 2004. Available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/ttvlc01.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2008.

Cohen T. Medical malpractice trials and verdicts in large counties, 2001. Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin #NCJ 203098; April 2004. Available at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/mmtvlc01.pdf. Accessed November 5, 2008.

Daniels S, Martin J. Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995:92–151.

10.

Diamond S, Vidmar N. Jury room ruminations on forbidden evidence. Virginia Law Rev. 2001;87:1857–1915.CrossRef

11.

Diamond S, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. Juror discussions during trial: studying an Arizona innovation. Arizona Law Rev. 2003;45:1–82.

12.

Engel D. The oven bird’s song: insiders, outsiders, and personal injuries in an American community. Law & Soc’y Rev. 1984;18:551–582.CrossRef

13.

Farber H, White M. A comparison of formal and informal dispute resolution in medical malpractice. J Legal Stud. 1991;23:777–806.CrossRef

14.

Hans V, Lofquist W. Perceptions of civil justice: the litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors. Behav Sci Law. 1994;12:181–196.CrossRef

15.

Hans V. Business on Trial: The Civil Jury and Corporate Liability. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001:50–179.

16.

Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation: State health facts. Available at: http://www.statehealthfacts.org. Accessed August 6, 2008.

17.

Heuer L, Penrod S. Trial complexity: a field investigation of its meaning and effects. Law & Hum Behav. 1994;18:29–52.CrossRef

18.

Hyman D, Black B, Zeiler K, Silver C, Sage W. Do defendants pay what juries award? Post verdict haircuts in Texas medical malpractice cases:1988–2003. J Empirical Legal Stud. 2007;4:3–68.CrossRef

19.

Johnson K, Phillips C, Orentlichter D. A fault-based administrative system for resolving medical malpractice claims. Vand L Rev. 1989;42:1365–1406.

20.

Kalven H, Zeisel H. The American Jury. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press, 1966;56–65.

21.

Kutnjak-Ivokovic S, Hans V. Jurors Evaluation of Expert Testimony, Judging The Messenger and the Message. Law & Soc Inquiry. 2003;28:441–482.CrossRef

22.

Mello M, Hemenway D. Medical malpractice as an epidemiological problem. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:39–46.PubMedCrossRef

23.

Peeples R, Harris C, Metzloff T. Settlement has many faces: physicians, attorneys, and medical malpractice. J Health Soc Behav. 2000;41:333–246.PubMedCrossRef

24.

Rosenblatt R, Hurst A. An analysis of closed obstetric malpractice claims. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:710–713.PubMed

25.

Saks M. Medical malpractice: facing real problems and finding real solutions. William & Mary Law Rev. 1994;35:693–720.

26.

Schuman D, Whittaker E, Champagne A. An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts—part two: a three city study. Jurimetrics J. 1994;34:193–206.

27.

Sloan F, Chepke L. Medical Malpractice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2008;58–62:166–170.

28.

Sloan F, van Wert S. Cost of injuries. In: Sloan F. Suing for Medical Malpractice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993:123–152.

29.

Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024–2033.PubMedCrossRef

30.

Surrell A. Cap on noneconomic damages is unconstitutional, judge says. AM News, June 2, 2008. Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/06/02/prsa0602.htm. Accessed August 1, 2008.

31.

Taragin M, Willett L, Wilczek A, Trout R, Carson J. The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:780–784.PubMed

32.

U.S. Department of Labor. Medical care inflation continues to rise. Monthly Labor Review. Available at: http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2001/May/wk4/art01.htm. Accessed May, 29, 2001.

33.

Vidmar N. Empirical evidence on the “deep pockets” hypothesis: jury awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Duke LJ. 1993;43:217–266.CrossRef

34.

Vidmar N. Medical Malpractice and the American Jury. Ann Arbor, MI: U. Michigan Press. 1995;69–94; 221–236–248.

35.

Vidmar N. Listening to jurors and asking them questions. Trial Briefs. 2002;August:9–13.

36.

Vidmar N. Medical malpractice lawsuits: an essay on patient interests, the contingency fee system, juries and social policy. Loy LA L Rev. 2005;38:1217–1266.

37.

Vidmar N, Diamond S. Juries and expert evidence. Brook L Rev. 2001;66:1121–1180.

38.

Vidmar N, Hans V. American Juries: The Verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 2007;147–190, 281–302.

39.

Vidmar N, Lee J, Cohen E, Stewart A. Damage awards and jurors’ responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases. Behav Sci Law. 1994;12:149–160.PubMedCrossRef

40.

Vidmar N, Lee P, MacKillop K, McCarthy K, McGwin G. Jury awards for medical malpractice and post-verdict adjustments of those awards. DePaul Law Rev. 2005;54:315–356.

41.

Vidmar N, MacKillop K. “Judicial hellholes,” medical malpractice claims, verdicts and the “doctor exodus” in Illinois. Vand L Rev. 2006;59:1309–1342.

42.

Vidmar N, MacKillop K, Lee P. Million dollar medical malpractice cases in Florida: post-verdict and pre-suit settlements. Vand L Rev. 2006;59:1343–1381.

43.

Vidmar N, Rice J. Assessments of non-economic damage awards in medical negligence: a comparison of jurors with legal professionals. Iowa L Rev. 1993;78:883–912.

Titel: Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths
verfasst von: Neil Vidmar, JD
Publikationsdatum: 01.02.2009
Verlag: Springer-Verlag
Erschienen in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Ausgabe 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Elektronische ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0608-6

Arthropedia

Grundlagenwissen der Arthroskopie und Gelenkchirurgie. Erweitert durch Fallbeispiele, Videos und Abbildungen.
» Jetzt entdecken

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

23.04.2024 | Leitsymptom Rückenschmerzen | Nachrichten

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Bestellen Sie unseren Fach-Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert.

Newsletter bestellen

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths

Abstract

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Live-Webinar: Aktuelle Leitlinien bei Herz-Kreislauf-Erkrankungen

Springer Medizin

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2009

Which Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Anterolateral or Posterior?

The Expert Witness in Medical Malpractice Litigation

Low Backache in a 70-year-old Woman

Bone Remodeling and Hydroxyapatite Resorption in Coated Primary Hip Prostheses

Indications for Surgery in Clinical Outcome Studies of Rotator Cuff Repair

The Classic: Report of the Committee on Suits for Malpractice

Arthropedia

Neu im Fachgebiet Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie

Ärztliche Empathie hilft gegen Rückenschmerzen

Stereotaktische Radiatio schlägt konventionelle Bestrahlung

Vorsicht mit hohen NSAR-Dosen bei ankylosierender Spondylitis!

Brustkrebs in der Vorgeschichte macht Gelenkersatz komplikationsträchtiger

Update Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie