Surgical Malpractice in California: Res Judicata

2014 ◽  
Vol 80 (10) ◽  
pp. 1007-1011
Author(s):  
Erik R. Barthel ◽  
Bruce E. Stabile ◽  
David Plurad ◽  
Dennis Kim ◽  
Angela Neville ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Retrospective Review ◽  
Jury Trial ◽  
Medical Negligence ◽  
Damage Awards ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Medical Injury ◽  
Compensation Reform ◽  
General Surgeons ◽  
Alternate Dispute Resolution

Medical negligence claims are of increasing concern to surgeons. Although noneconomic damage awards in California are limited by the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) law to $250,000, the total amount of such settlements can increase significantly based on claims for economic damages. We reviewed negligence litigation involving California surgeons to determine outcomes and monetary awards through retrospective review of surgical malpractice cases published in a legal journal. This review was limited to actions involving general surgeons. Such litigation was voluntarily reported by either defense's or plaintiff's counsel at the conclusion of the litigation. Data reviewed included alleged damages incurred by the plaintiff; plaintiff's pre-trial settlement demand, plaintiff or defense verdict, use of alternate means of resolution such as arbitration or mediation, and total monetary award to the plaintiff. A total of 69 cases were reported over a 20-month period: 32 (46%) were plaintiffs’ verdicts, whereas 37 (54%) were in favor of the surgeon. Only 10 (31%) of the plaintiff verdicts were by jury trial, whereas the rest were settled by pretrial agreement, mediation, or arbitration. Of cases settled by alternate dispute resolution, the median settlement was $820,000 (n = 22) compared with a median jury trial award of $300,000 (n = 10).

scholarly journals Contextualizing alternate dispute resolution: an agile approach to resolve disputes in infrastructure projects

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-116
Author(s):  
Shahin Kabir ◽  
Ammar Younas ◽  
Manish Paul
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Diagnostic Approach ◽  
Infrastructure Projects ◽  
Agile Approach ◽  
Alternate Dispute Resolution

This paper examines the potential disputes in infrastructure projects’ environment, critiques the available Alternate Dispute Resolution options in practice both in local and international jurisdictions and proposes a diagnostic approach to resolve the disputes prevalent in infrastructure projects

Professional Conduct

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ann A. Abbott
Keyword(s):  
Social Workers ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Code Of Ethics ◽  
Professional Behavior ◽  
Professional Conduct ◽  
Professional Misconduct ◽  
Alternate Dispute Resolution ◽  
Professional Review ◽  
Over Time

The professional review process delineates procedures for hearing complaints of alleged professional misconduct by members of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW). It provides mechanisms for conducting hearings and alternate dispute resolution via mediation, monitoring professional behavior, and sanctioning and developing corrective actions for NASW members who are in violation of the NASW’s Code of Ethics. The process, originally developed in 1967, has been modified over time to reflect the best identified means for conducting fair hearings and carrying out the most appropriate interventions.

Integrated Justice in Pakistan: From Legal Pluralism to Normative Convergence

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 805-820
Author(s):  
Tahir Mahmood ◽  
Sajjad Ali Khan ◽  
Shahab Sarwar
Keyword(s):  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Legal Pluralism ◽  
Court System ◽  
Colonial Era ◽  
Legal Legitimacy ◽  
Enforcement Mechanisms ◽  
Dispute Resolution Mechanism ◽  
Alternate Dispute Resolution ◽  
Parting Ways

Legal pluralism, throughout most of developing countries, has been extant since the onset of colonial era. Manifested in a variety of forms, legal pluralism is inherently characterized by both promises as well as limitations. In Pakistan, legal pluralism is epitomized by the prevalence and functioning of parallel systems of justice such as formal courts and Alternate Dispute Resolution Mechanism (ADRM), such as “Jirga. Poor coordination and tenuous enforcement mechanisms, however, render the formal justice system in Pakistan one of poorest performers in terms of judicial efficacy world-wide. This article seeks to explore the possibility of a convergence between traditional and modern models of dispute resolution, i.e. Jirga and court system and the resultant efficacy thereof through devising a conceptual framework. The framework reveals that both formal courts and Jirga demonstrate marked discrepancies concerning their efficacy with respect to the provision of justice and dispute resolution. Findings from the field, however, evince that Jirga stand out to be a relatively more effective mechanism of dispute resolution than formal courts. The conceptual framework, however, implies that by converging both systems it is possible to cope with the limitations of each of the two systems such that while courts could provide legal legitimacy to the Jirga by improving its decency and accountability through regulations, Jirga could enhance the legitimacy of courts by improving its accessibility and transparency through feedback mechanisms. The article concludes by way of arguing that instead of parting ways with each other, both courts and jirga shall seek to go hand in hand in order avoid delays in the  provision of justice.

A model for proactive mediation of construction disputes

1995 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis T. Hartman ◽  
George F. Jergeas
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
Construction Industry ◽  
Cost Reduction ◽  
Alternative Dispute Resolution ◽  
Construction Disputes ◽  
Area Of Interest ◽  
New Process ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Alternate Dispute Resolution ◽  
Management Contracts

Alternative dispute resolution methods remain an area of interest and study because of the continued increase in the incidence of disputes, be they claims or litigation. Practice in the industry tends to stimulate litigation if negotiation of claims is unsuccessful. At variance with this is the declared preference of construction industry practitioners for mediation over arbitration and for arbitration over litigation. Mediation has had a high success rate when used in construction dispute resolution. The cost of mediation is significantly lower than litigation or arbitration. The probability of the parties to the dispute being able to work together effectively after the dispute has been resolved is higher, and the dispute can be resolved more quickly than by arbitration or litigation. This paper presents the findings of a study undertaken to identify a better process for construction contracting. An essential part of the new process is the use of proactive mediation. Proactive mediation is the use of a mediator prior to a dispute arising to help identify and address potential problems before they become difficult or unsolvable issues. The proposed methodology has been tested through a process which obtained the input of over 60 senior industry practitioners. Key words: mediation, construction management, contracts, claims, cost reduction, alternate dispute resolution, risk management.

Part II Ambit of Protection, 4 Parallel Proceedings

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
McLachlan Campbell ◽  
Shore Laurence ◽  
Weiniger Matthew
Keyword(s):  
Dispute Resolution ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
The Road ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
Investment Treaty ◽  
Investment Arbitration ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Investment Treaty Arbitration

Chapter 4 deals with a complex set of problems that have arisen in determining the relationship between parallel claims in investment arbitration and other forms of dispute resolution, including proceedings in host State courts. Five issues which arbitral tribunals have had to confront in considering the impact of other forms of dispute resolution upon their jurisdiction are explored in particular: (1) the distinction between breach of contract and breach of treaty; (2) election, waiver, and ‘fork in the road’; (3) prior resort to local remedies; (4) internationalised contract claims and ‘umbrella clauses’; and (5) parallel treaty arbitration. The chapter considers the extent to which the general doctrines of lis pendens, res judicata, election, waiver, and abuse of process are capable of application in investment treaty arbitration.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document