Tort Law as It Applies to Medical Malpractice Litigation

1989 ◽  
pp. 22-25
Author(s):  
Troyen A. Brennan
Keyword(s):  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

Medicolegal Issues in Pathology

2008 ◽  
Vol 132 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-191
Author(s):  
Timothy Craig Allen
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Litigation Process ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
Medicolegal Issues

Abstract The various methods used by risk managers to assist clinicians in handling medicolegal risk, including improving communication with patients and better dealing with medical records issues, are not particularly of benefit to pathologists. An understanding of tort law, the theory of negligence, the principle of standard of care, and the role of the expert witness helps the pathologist generally assess and manage risk and put it into context with daily pathology practice. An understanding of the litigation process and techniques to better handle a deposition and high-risk specimens or diagnoses are of practical value in avoiding a lawsuit or increasing the likelihood for good outcome in medical malpractice litigation.

The Medical Malpractice Litigation System

2021 ◽  
pp. 51-74
Author(s):  
Michael J. Saks ◽  
Stephan Landsman
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Economic Analysis ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Great Majority ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Legal Response ◽  
System P ◽  
Litigation Process ◽  
Tort System

“The Medical Malpractice Litigation System” provides a description of the conventional legal response to negligent adverse events. First, it discusses the origins, nature, and purposes (usually given as compensation and deterrence) of the tort system; explains the economic analysis of tort law (including the concept of negligence), and describes some of the specialized rules that apply only to medical malpractice torts. Most of the chapter is a data-based walk-through of the stages of the malpractice litigation process, including the proportion of cases that enter and proceed through each stage: initiation of claims (including attorney screening), pretrial disposition, trials, verdicts, compensation awards, and adjustments following verdicts. The evidence shows that the great majority of negligently caused injuries never enter the system, trials are rare, and negotiation plays so great a part that the system is best characterized as one of “litigotiation.”

scholarly journals Outcomes of Medical Malpractice Litigation Against US Physicians

2012 ◽  
Vol 172 (11) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anupam B. Jena ◽  
Amitabh Chandra ◽  
Darius Lakdawalla ◽  
Seth Seabury
Keyword(s):  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

Medical Malpractice Litigation: Do the British Have a Better Remedy?

1986 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 433-463
Author(s):  
Frances H. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Great Britain ◽  
National Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Medical Service ◽  
Institutional Factors ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
American System ◽  
Malpractice Claims ◽  
Medical Malpractice Claims

AbstractMedical malpractice claims are filed nearly ten times more frequently in America than they are in Great Britain. British patients generally adopt a less adversarial stance toward medical malpractice than do American patients. This Article examines the British malpractice system, as compared with the American system, and explores the differences between the two, in terms of costs and fees, liability rules, statutory provisions, and judicial attitudes toward malpractice litigation. The Article also discusses British social and institutional factors, such as the “taint” of litigation and the National Health Service, and evaluates how these factors affect British malpractice litigation. The Article presents the alternative forums available to British patients in seeking satisfaction for their medical service complaints. The Article concludes with an evaluation of how these factors achieve the three societal objectives of malpractice litigation: reparation, emotional vindication and deterrence.

Medical Malpractice and Rhinology

2007 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 584-590 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas E. Dawson ◽  
Eric M. Kraus
Keyword(s):  
Paranasal Sinuses ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Claims Data ◽  
Neck Surgery ◽  
Sinus Surgery ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Malpractice Claims ◽  
Medical Malpractice Claims ◽  
Nose And Sinuses ◽  
Management Report

Background Physicians facing malpractice litigation are in uncharted territory. The language, concepts, rules, and strategies of the legal system are foreign to science-based physicians. Understanding the statistics of rhinology malpractice litigation may aid the physician to cope with the assault of a claim. Methods Information from the 2006 Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA) and the 2006 PIAA Risk Management Report (RMR)–Otorhinolaryngology were searched for claims data referable to the nose, nasal chamber, and paranasal sinuses. The PIAA data sharing report (DSR) is the largest single resource of malpractice claims data containing both settlement and trial judgment information. Results The nose, nasal cavity, and paranasal sinuses represent nearly two-thirds of the total indemnity paid for improper performance from otolaryngology head and neck surgery (Oto-HNS) medical malpractice claims between 1985 and 2005 based on claims information. Improper performance accounts for 50.3% of total monies paid ($107.6 million of $213.6 million) to resolve Oto-HNS claims in this period. Of nearly 2400 operative claims closed in the period of 1985–2005, 34.1% involved procedures on the nose and sinuses. In the past 6 years, $103.5 million indemnity has been added to the otolaryngology total. Conclusion The area of endoscopic sinus surgery has substantially contributed to Oto-HNS claims in the PIAA DSR. Despite malpractice being a cost of medical practice, every claim is perceived as an assault on the surgeon's competence. Ensuring informed consent and complete documentation may assist the provider in defending their care.

Could Patient Engagement Promote a Health System Free From Malpractice Litigation Risk?

2018 ◽  
pp. 431-454
Author(s):  
Massimo Miglioretti ◽  
Francesca Mariani ◽  
Luca Vecchio
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Patient Engagement ◽  
Professional Education ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Active Role ◽  
The United States ◽  
Litigation Risk ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

In recent decades, medical malpractice litigation experienced a large-scale expansion in the United States as well as in Europe, involving both medical and surgical specialties. Previous studies have investigated the reasons why patients decide to sue doctors for malpractice and highlighted that adverse outcome, negative communication with doctors and seeking compensation are among the major reasons for malpractice litigation. In this chapter, patient engagement is discussed as a possible method for reducing the risks of doctors being sued for medical malpractice. The results of a first qualitative study underline how an active role for patients and their engagement in the treatment definition and execution could be a way to limit the occurrence of malpractice litigations. However, a second study noted that in Italy, many patients are still struggling to become involved in the process of their care. The authors discuss the role of professional education in promoting patient engagement in Italy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document