The Potential Effect of Health Courts: Another Insight
May 17, 2007, 5:06 AM, Posted by RWJF Blog Team
The Washington Post reported recently on a study published this month in the Michigan Law Review by University of Missouri law professor Philip G. Peters, Jr., on who fares better in jury trials for malpractice lawsuits: defendants or plaintiffs. Evidently, defendant doctors do: the Post says Peters found that "Doctors win about half of the cases that independent experts who review them believe should result in a plaintiff's victory."
The Post goes on to comment
"One proposed solution -- to turn cases over to specialized health courts -- might result in less-favorable results for physicians, he (Peters) suggests. Studies have consistently found that malpractice plaintiffs fared better in front of judges than in front of juries."
The blog Kevin, MD has been hosting quite a discussion on Peters' findings, including comments on the likely implications of and for the health courts model.
This commentary originally appeared on the RWJF Pioneering Ideas blog.