No Need for Tort Reform in Medical Malpractice Cases

Dan Frith

Contributor

0 CommentsPrint ArticleSubscribe

Surely I'm kidding you right? I have enough friends and acquaintances who are quick to tell me the laws governing medical malpractice lawsuits needs to be "reformed" in order to be fairer to doctors and prevent the wide-spread defection of doctors to other states and greener pastures! A new university-based study says those calling for reform are full of baloney...or something worse!

Philip Peters, a University of Missouri law professor, conducted an analysis of 11 studies of medical malpractice claims and settlements. The studies were conducted between 1988 and 2006 and included almost 20,000 medical malpractice cases. The analysis resulted in the following conclusions:

o Strong cases settle at a higher rate and for much larger average payments

o Settlement offers were significantly less in weak cases, and when an offer was made in a weak case, the amount of the offer was significantly smaller

o To the extent that settlement outcomes departed from the merits of the case...the discrepancies usually favored the defendants

Not only does this analysis refute the assertion that medical malpractice settlements are an irrational lottery where fault and settlement are unrelated...the study tells us that doctors are getting the better end of the deal even in cases where the claim has merit.