Fictions and Facts: Medical Malpractice Litigation, Physician Supply, and Health Care Spending in Texas Before and after HB 4

Records of medical malpractice litigation: a potential indicator of health-care quality in China

Bulletin of the World Health Organization ◽

10.2471/blt.16.179143 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 95 (6) ◽

pp. 430-436 ◽

Cited By ~ 10

Author(s):

Zhan Wang ◽

Niying Li ◽

Mengsi Jiang ◽

Keith Dear ◽

Chee-Ruey Hsieh

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Medical Malpractice ◽

Health Care Quality ◽

Care Quality ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Potential Indicator

Download Full-text

The Current Status of Medical Malpractice Countersuits

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800009370 ◽

1985 ◽

Vol 10 (4) ◽

pp. 439-457

Author(s):

David J. Sokol

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Health Care Costs ◽

Medical Malpractice ◽

Current Status ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Economic Motivation ◽

Contingent Fee ◽

Care Costs ◽

Dramatic Growth

AbstractThe dramatic growth of medical malpractice litigation in recent decades has contributed significantly to an overall increase in health care costs in this country. Although lawmakers, physicians, and other responsible citizens have proposed numerous solutions in an effort to curb die crisis, diese proposals have generally been ineffective.In this Article the Audior endorses countersuits as die most appropriate response to frivolous medical malpractice actions. The Author also suggests that contingent fee systems, coupled with the economic motivation of private insurers to settle claims quickly, provide incentive for plaintiffs to initiate frivolous claims.This Article analyzes the general legal approaches available for countersuits, emphasizing recent successful actions based on malicious prosecution and abuse of process, and proposes more widespread use of diese approaches.

Download Full-text

The, Of, For, In The Use of Amicable Settlement for Resolving Medical Malparctice in Indonesia

Medicine Law & Society ◽

10.18690/mls.14.1.119-134.2021 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 14 (1) ◽

pp. 119-134

Author(s):

Muh Endriyo Susila

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Dispute Resolution ◽

Medical Malpractice ◽

Care Setting ◽

Defensive Medicine ◽

Health Care Setting ◽

Hostile Environment ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Litigation Process ◽

Injured Patients

Massive publicity on alleged medical malpractice cases has created hostile environment within the health care setting in Indonesia. The unexpected practice of defensive medicine would be possible in response to the rise of medical malpractice litigation. Although it has many negative implications, litigating medical malpractice dispute is preferable for many injured patients. Dispute resolution mechanisms should be introduced and promoted in Indonesia as an alternative to the litigation process with hope of providing redress to victims of medical malpractice in a more amicable manner. This paper aims at exploring the use of amicable settlement method for resolving medical malpractice disputes in Indonesia.

Download Full-text

A Look at the Massachusetts Malpractice Tribunal System

American Journal of Law & Medicine ◽

10.1017/s0098858800005360 ◽

1977 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 197-207

Author(s):

Walter H. McLaughlin

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

American Medical ◽

Health Care Provider ◽

Care Provider ◽

Medical Malpractice ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Court Judge ◽

Chief Justice ◽

Normal Manner ◽

Malpractice Claims

AbstractIn this Oration, the retired Chief Justice of the Massachusetts Superior Court offers some personal observations on the American medical malpractice crisis and examines the Massachusetts malpractice tribunal system, which is aimed at reducing the incidence of malpractice litigation that is either frivolous or involves simply an “unfortunate medical result” for which the health care provider should not be held accountable. First, the author relates some of his impressions of the evolution of the malpractice crisis and identifies its salient characteristics. Next, he provides a description and an evaluation of the Massachusetts tribunal system. Under that system, the plaintiff in any malpractice action must argue before a special tribunal—composed of a Superior Court judge, an attorney, and a surgeon—that his case raises a “legitimate question of liability.” If the tribunal finds that such a question exists, the plaintiff may pursue his case in the normal manner. But if the tribunal finds that the case involves “merely an unfortunate medical result,” and if the plaintiff still wishes to press his claim, he must, before proceeding, post a $2,000 bond, which is used to help pay the defendant’s litigation costs if the defendant prevails at the trial. The author offers data to support his contention that this tribunal system already is screening out a significant number of inappropriate malpractice claims. Nevertheless, he suggests that the system has substantial problems. He identifies those problems, and proposes methods for solving them.

Download Full-text

Why Patients Sue Doctors: The Japanese Experience

The Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics ◽

10.1111/j.1748-720x.2009.00450.x ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 37 (4) ◽

pp. 792-799 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Eric A. Feldman

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Medical Malpractice ◽

Japanese Patients ◽

Adverse Outcomes ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Care Experience ◽

Cost Of Health Care ◽

American Legal System ◽

The Cost ◽

The U.S

The cost of health care, its growing share of the gross domestic product (GDP), and dire predictions about the future are a major political and economic issue in the U.S. The American legal system is commonly viewed as a significant part of the problem, particularly by those who believe that medical providers engage in defensive medicine in an effort to avoid malpractice litigation. Yet scholars and commentators in the U.S. have shown relatively little interest in how other nations manage legal conflict over health care and whether they might learn something from abroad about the relationship between malpractice litigation and the health care system more generally.To that end, this article analyzes the Japanese health care experience, specifically the management of what are variously called adverse outcomes, medical accidents, and medical malpractice. How frequently do Japanese patients sue their doctors? Are medical malpractice litigation rates in Japan rising? If so, what is being done to control the increase and its impact on medical care? How well is Japan doing when it comes to balancing the needs of patients who believe they are victims of medical negligence with those of providers who think they are being unfairly accused? These are the questions, about Japan (and elsewhere), that need to be asked by those interested in the nexus of law and health care in the U.S.

Download Full-text

Medical Malpractice in England and Wales - A Postcard from the Edge

European Journal of Health Law ◽

10.1163/157180996x00022 ◽

1996 ◽

Vol 3 (2) ◽

pp. 109-126

Author(s):

Michael A. Jones

Keyword(s):

Health Care ◽

Risk Management ◽

National Health Service ◽

Health Care Professionals ◽

Medical Malpractice ◽

Medical Profession ◽

Medical Professionals ◽

Malpractice Litigation ◽

Management Policies ◽

The Cost

AbstractIt has long been claimed that the risk of litigation influences the way some health care professionals approach their work, in the form of 'defensive practices' adopted by individuals. As medical malpractice litigation continues to escalate, the cost of claims is now beginning to have an impact upon the NHS in terms of the handling of claims and the development of more comprehensive risk management policies. It is extremely difficult to assess whether malpractice litigation is bad for health care, by inducing wasteful and potentially risky defensive medicine, or good for health care by deterring substandard provision. The attitude of the English courts is generally supportive of the medical profession and the National Health Service, who are seen as being hard-pressed by a phenomenon that could easily spiral out of control. This is reflected in an extremely cautious approach to finding medical professionals liable for negligence. But, despite the judicial hesitance, claims rates are continuing to rise.

Download Full-text