Agreements Changing the Forum for Resolving Malpractice Claims

Henderson,; James, Annabelle

doi:10.2307/1191425

Cited by 5 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Traditional litigation in the courts is still perceived to be fairer in cases where injuries are severe and potential damages high. 88 Arbitration panels are judged to be more biased than courts, which is a natural result given that most panels are partly composed of physicians and none have representation from patient advocacy groups. According to one study, the medical panel member was the least likely to make a finding of negligence.…”

Section: Arbitration's Success In Resolving Medical Malpractice Disputesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice: A Challenge to Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Mitchell

McDiarmid²

1988

Can. j. law soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ideally, medical malpractice actions should deter medical negligence and compensate victims in a manner that is fair, speedy, cost-effective and accessible. Tort critics, however, argue that tort law in general and malpractice actions in particular do not match this ideal. But there is considerable debate about whether the identified faults are inherent or optional in tort adjudication. Those who believe adjudication itself is faulty propose alternative strategies including no-fault compensation schemes, public law prosecution and arbitration. In the paper's first section we consider whether the performance of the traditional adversarial system of dispute resolution in medical malpractice cases is inadequate. Arbitration's effectiveness as an alternative to litigation is then evaluated with reference to three arbitration models employed in the United States. We conclude that arbitration reforms offer distinct advantages but are no panacea for some basic justice problems that stem from political, legal and economic power imbalances between physicians and their clients.

show abstract

Section: Arbitration's Success In Resolving Medical Malpractice Disputesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice: A Challenge to Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Mitchell

McDiarmid²

1988

Can. j. law soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Medical Liability Reform

Abraham

1988

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Can Practice Guidelines Reduce the Number and Costs of Malpractice Claims?

Garnick¹

1991

JAMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Practice guidelines have the potential to reduce the number of malpractice cases and the costs of settling them. However, for practice guidelines to exert any influence, they must be assumed to be (1) developed for conditions or procedures that frequently lead to events for which negligence claims are filed; (2) widely accepted in the medical profession; (3) fully integrated into clinical practice; and (4) straightforward and readily interpreted in a litigation setting. Because the validity of each of these assumptions can be questioned, the idea that inserting practice guidelines into the existing litigation process will generate large savings in the near future is overly optimistic.

show abstract

Agreements Changing the Forum for Resolving Malpractice Claims

Cited by 5 publications

References 0 publications

Medical Malpractice: A Challenge to Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Medical Malpractice: A Challenge to Alternative Dispute Resolution.

Medical Liability Reform

Can Practice Guidelines Reduce the Number and Costs of Malpractice Claims?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About