Where would the compensation money come from? Who will bear the largest expense involved with malpractice claims–the cost of defending against them? It seems always laughable how these proposals seem to be great ideas people have to spend other people’s (mainly ours) money.
While I do believe that this approach may have considerable value in cost savings in many areas, I equally believe that passage of any truly meaningful legislation of this nature, on either a federal or state level, is extremely unlikely, given that these bodies are firmly in the hip pockets of the trial bar.
One idea that has worked in Pennsylvania is prevention of venue shopping where lawyers find the most generous court and try to get their cases tried there. In PA, the med mal case must be tried in the county where the event allegedly occurred. This has reduced the number of new med mal cases in the Philadelphia courts by one-half.
Anything is better that what’s in place. Emotion has no place in the courtroom when it comes to determining liability. The burden of proof to establish negligence has eroded and needs to be re-established. When dealing with the human body, nothing comes with a 100% guarantee. An undesirable outcome doesn’t equate to malpractice. The other MAJOR problem we have is the antiquated legal theory that money is the only acceptable type of “compensation”. Since everyone agrees “it’s not about the money” and that “you can’t place a value on X”, why do we always try? Answer: greed of personal injury attorneys. This country is on a slippery slope with politicians and lawyers running the incestuous system.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
Where would the compensation money come from? Who will bear the largest expense involved with malpractice claims–the cost of defending against them? It seems always laughable how these proposals seem to be great ideas people have to spend other people’s (mainly ours) money.
While I do believe that this approach may have considerable value in cost savings in many areas, I equally believe that passage of any truly meaningful legislation of this nature, on either a federal or state level, is extremely unlikely, given that these bodies are firmly in the hip pockets of the trial bar.
One idea that has worked in Pennsylvania is prevention of venue shopping where lawyers find the most generous court and try to get their cases tried there. In PA, the med mal case must be tried in the county where the event allegedly occurred. This has reduced the number of new med mal cases in the Philadelphia courts by one-half.
Anything is better that what’s in place. Emotion has no place in the courtroom when it comes to determining liability. The burden of proof to establish negligence has eroded and needs to be re-established. When dealing with the human body, nothing comes with a 100% guarantee. An undesirable outcome doesn’t equate to malpractice. The other MAJOR problem we have is the antiquated legal theory that money is the only acceptable type of “compensation”. Since everyone agrees “it’s not about the money” and that “you can’t place a value on X”, why do we always try? Answer: greed of personal injury attorneys. This country is on a slippery slope with politicians and lawyers running the incestuous system.