PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 15318565

Improving the medical malpractice litigation process.

Abstract

Critics charge that judges and juries are incompetent to address medical liability issues. Some advocate shifting authority away from ordinary judges and juries, either by appointing "expert" decisionmakers, such as "medical screening panels" or specialized "medical courts," or by instituting caps on damages. Problems with the tort liability system may weigh in favor of a shift to a no-fault administrative compensation system. If the current fault-based system is retained, however, policymakers should not adopt half-measures by creating "expert" panels or "expert" courts. Rather, they should better equip the existing decisionmakers to deal with liability and damages questions.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Catherine T Struve. Improving the medical malpractice litigation process.. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.23.4.33

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Expert medical testimony: Responsibilities of medical societies.

Expert witnesses for plaintiff and defense should be able to provide evidence-based literature to support their testimony in depositions and in the courtroom. Specialty societies, such as the American Academy of Neurology, should be willing to review complaints about unsubstantiated testimony and, at times, publicly discipline offending experts.

Expert Testimony↗