by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including radiology nursing. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task expert witnesses at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog posts:

The strategies described above do not constitute an exhaustive list of tactics implemented by states to achieve medical malpractice reform. For example, a number of states are encouraging health care providers to apologize to the patient for the medical error by prohibiting such action from being considered as an admission of guilt in future legal actions. (15) Furthermore, states are increasingly searching for new ways to address this issue as a means not only to reduce costs but also to promote patient safety, ameliorate the potentially litigious nature of the provider-patient relationship, encourage the consistent use of best practices, and to evaluate how the practices of other interested parties, such as insurance companies, affect the crisis of medical malpractice liability.

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including operating room nursing nursing. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task expert witnesses at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog posts:

Reasons to resolve medical malpractice claims through alternative dispute resolution include the parties’ ability to control the procedure (eg, time, place); reduced costs; shortened time to resolve the dispute; reduced emotional trauma compared to litigation; and preservation or maintenance of the relationship between the parties. (14) Alternative dispute resolution requirements do pose some concerns, however, including whether patients receive full compensation for their injuries such as they might through litigation, whether patients are intimidated into premature settlements, and whether these pretrial negotiations serve merely to delay inevitable litigation.

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including pediatric nursing. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task expert witnesses at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog posts:

Another method that states require as a prerequisite to restrict the time period when a claim for damages can be filed is to require that alternative dispute resolution negotiations, such as arbitration and/or mediation, occur before the claim is filed. Alternative dispute resolution requirements vary considerably from state to state. For example, Hawaii, Illinois, and New Jersey require that cases for claims less than a specified amount must participate in an arbitration proceeding despite the fact that the decision can be nonbinding for the parties involved. Alternatively, Michigan permits parties to agree voluntarily to arbitration, but if the claim is for $75,000 or less, the decision of the arbitrator is binding. Another variation of the alternative dispute resolution requirement is found in Oregon where all parties must participate in some form of dispute resolution unless the case is settled or all parties have voluntarily waived, in writing, the right to enter into such negotiations.

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including neurological nursing. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task expert witnesses at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog posts:

The second way that states limit the number of claims for damages brought against health care providers is by requiring the plaintiff to submit a pretrial certificate of merit from a medical expert validating the claim of malpractice. About one-third of the states currently have certificate or affidavit of merit requirements for medical malpractice cases. It is widely believed among proponents of medical malpractice reform that the certificate of merit requirement will prevent excessive filings of weak claims. A number of patient-rights advocates assert, however, that this requirement places an undue burden on plaintiffs.

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including surgical nursing. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task expert witnesses at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog posts:

Restricting conditions for medical malpractice claims.

A fourth strategy used by many states for medical malpractice reform is specifying at what point in time it is appropriate for an injured party to bring a claim against a health care provider. States restrict these claims in a variety of ways, three of which are discussed below.

Continue reading

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including perinatal care expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Joint and several liability. A third strategy that states frequently employ to reform their medical liability system is to modify another legal doctrine, joint and several liability, which is common to cases in which more than one person caused the harm. The joint and several liability doctrine permits holding a single defendant responsible for the entire damage versus being held responsible for the percentage of the damages that can be reasonably attributed to them.A number of states have modified this doctrine by separating joint liability from several liability, thus establishing a mechanism of proportionately assigning harm among the defendants

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including neonatal care expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Alternatively, those who oppose modifying the collateral source rule assert that plaintiffs do not receive double recovery if they are paid up front by another source because many insurance companies, especially public payers, require that the plaintiff essentially pay back any money that is subsequently recovered in a medical malpractice case. (8) Opponents also contend that elimination or modification of the collateral source rule helps health care providers avoid paying for the full amount of the actual damage(s) they caused, thereby decreasing full accountability for their actions.

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including birth defects expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Modifying the collateral source rule. A second approach to medical liability reform that a number of states adopt is modifying the collateral source rule. Intact, the collateral source rule prohibits defendants from introducing information at trial or during negotiation for the purpose of off setting the damages awarded by asserting that the plaintiff may have received compensation from another source (eg, worker’s compensation, another Insurer). (5)

Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, and Vermont permit consideration of collateral source payments received by the patient when damages are awarded in medical malpractice cases. (6) Proponents of this type of reform argue that “[w]hen a plaintiff receives compensation from their insurance company and again at trial, the Insurance proceeds do not represent actual compensation for an Individual’s injuries, but rather a source of windfall.”

by

National Medical Consultants represents a panel of over 1900 distinguished specialists in all areas of medicine including perinatal injuries care expert witnesses. In Medical malpractice liability reform-no easy task experts at National Medical Consultants continue from January 1st blog:

Only 13 states still use the combined form of the joint and several liability doctrine for medical malpractice cases. (3) Many states that have modified the doctrine will enforce joint and several liability, however, when the health care provider is found to have acted “in concert with others” or with “intentional malice” or when the health care provider’s acts attributed to more than 50% of the harm. (3) Additionally, states such as California and Ohio apply joint and several liability to only the economic portion of the damages and not to the noneconomic portion. (3)

One rationale for maintaining the original application of joint and several liability is to protect patients from having to bring cases against every health care provider who participated in the act that resulted in harm. (10) Conversely, the rationale for modifying the joint and several liability rule is to decrease the number of additional court cases that will result when the single defendant attempts to recover damages from the other health care providers involved. In addition, although joint and several liability may encourage defendants to settle out of court to avoid being found responsible for the entire damage award, proponents of the rule-modification strategy contend that “it has had the effect of turning lawsuits into all out searches to find the most financially lucrative defendants.”