The Medical Malpractice Liability System

Medical malpractice lawsuits are an extremely serious topic and have affected numerous patients, doctors, and hospitals across the country. Medical malpractice is defined as “improper, unskilled or negligent treatment of a patient by a physician, dentist, nurse, pharmacist, or other health care professional” (Medical malpractice, n.d.). If a doctor acts negligent and causes harm to a patient, malpractice lawsuits arise. Negligence is the concept of the liability concerning claims of medical malpractice, making this type of litigation part of tort law. Tort law provides that one person may litigate negligence to recover damages for personal injury. Negligence laws are designed to deter careless behavior and also to

Tort reform is very controversial issue. From the plaintiff’s perspective, tort reforms seems to take liability away from places such as insurance companies and hospitals which could at times leave the plaintiff without defense. From the defendant’s perspective, tort reform provides a defense from extremely large punitive damage awards. There seems to be no median between the two. Neither side will be satisfied. With the help of affiliations such as the American Tort Reform Association and Citizens Against Lawsuit Abuse, many businesses and corporations are working to change the current tort system to stop these high cash awards.

Who is at fault? How much should I get? How long do I have to cerebrate about it? These are the three sizable questions when it comes to tort reform. This is one of the sultriest legal topics bypassing the country because not only does it affect the victim, it withal effects the incriminated and the rest of the taxpayers. First, if there is no tort reform the United States will perpetuate on its lawsuit blissful path causing insurance rates and costs to perpetuate to skyrocket. On the other hand, if there is an inordinate amount of reform, victims will be left behind and their rights lost. Lastly, I would relish to do more research on what precisely needs to be transmuted to make the legislation fair for all parties involved. In Conclusion,

A tort is wrongful interference against a person or property, other than breaches of contract, for which the courts can rectify through legal action. The reform effort is aimed at reducing the number of unnecessary lawsuits that burden the court system while still allowing injured parties compensation when they’ve been wronged. This latest effort at tort reform has given rise to the same spirited rhetoric that might be found in a courtroom.

Tort reform is the attempt to improve the tort law, which is a civil wrong that unreasonably causes another individual to suffer harm or loss resulting in legal liability for the individual who commits the unjust act. It has been occurring since the 1900s, where certain people, such as wealthy defendants and insurance companies, disliked the idea that people were receiving a limitless amount of money using the tort law. So, many interest groups, lobbyist groups, and PACs (political action committees) took control over reforming the tort law in attempt to achieve the goal of reducing the amount of money defendants would have to pay by putting caps on damages. In this way, large insurance companies and other corporations and groups have

Tort reforms are laws that limit or reduce damages or awards in a specific state. People are in favor of tort reforms because they think that frivolous lawsuits are clogging the courtrooms, which is just not true. In 1992, the National Center for State Court’s (NCSC) data showed that only 2.4% all civil cases brought to court were of medical cases and only 1.7% were product cases. This very clearly shows that frivolous civil cases are not clogging the court room (The Free Library).

On a positive note litigation works for people who have been affected by certain malpractices. It is a protection for families who need answers and representation. From the health care facility side it can also help them to take proper precautions and develop policies on the behalf of theirs as well as the clients, which places value. Negatively speaking, the delivery of healthcare and the function of the health care system, consistency, quality, and consistent levels for citizens are all affected. Too much of anything is no good and if litigation continues excessively there will continue to be limits that result in a system that is unable to grow, lack of consistent care, and higher costs.

The two most popular seem to be the capping of damages – limiting the rewards a victim of medical malpractice receives – and the limitation of a patient’s right to jury (Odom, “Health”). A number of other proposed actions exist, including procedural limitation on the ability to file claims and the idea called “loser pays” – forcing the loser of the case to pay for the other party’s costs in the trial. The practice of capping damages would reduce risk for doctors, as a lawsuit would no longer bankrupt them. Thus, they would not be forced to over-test and overspend. It would also create less incentive for patients to pursue claims they knew were undeserved (Odom). Many proponents of tort reform also advocate limiting patients’ rights to a trial by jury – specially designed “health courts” would preside over the cases instead (“Health”). Because of the trial by jury, as currently practiced in these cases, very often the actual reprimands and awards are subject to chance and the “sympathy vote” instead of facts. The same injury could grant a patient anywhere from $100,000 to $2 million (“Health”). The design of health courts would eliminate this subjectivity, and redress would be awarded in reasonable, consistent amounts. The two other actions mentioned, procedural limitations on the ability to file claims and the “loser pays” idea, would work by decreasing the incentive of a patient to file an unreasonable claim. It

The fear of medical malpractice lawsuits is an issue faced by all who practice medicine. To avoid public criticism by colleagues or the public from their profession and sometimes lose their ability to practice, physicians, and doctors feel forced to follow published standards of care. These treatments often include prescribing medications made to treat

One approach to minimize large amounts of tort claims for medical malpractice is to put a cap on non-economical awards. Tort reform is the response; a tort is a civil lawsuit for damages over private wrongs other than breach of contract. According to Lau and Johnson (2014), a tort can be categorized into three categories: intentional tort, when tortfeasor acted with intent, negligence, if the tortfeasor did not act intentionally, but failed to act as a reasonable person, and lastly, strict liability, if the tortfeasor is engaged in certain activities, which caused injury or death due to it. The massive medical malpractice cases across the nation have made defending frivolous lawsuits is a national problem; ultimately, the general public

Tort reform, being one of those platforms, is proposed as one solution to the rapidly increasing health care cost in the United States. Careful reform of medical malpractice laws can lower administrative costs and health spending. This will also lead to improved patient safety and steer physicians away from the costly practice of defensive medicine.

Lawsuits of medical malpractice may be the greatest threat to justice in the legal system. Tort cases are constantly filed against medical practices which cause health care prices to dramatically increase in states lacking caps. Medical practitioners are forced to undergo an unnecessary amount of costly tests and procedures in order to defend themselves from frivolous lawsuits. The expenses of these precautions cause hospitals and other medical facilities to charge more for the care given to the patients,

Plainly said, Tort Reform is caps on damages. Tort reform is not just one single idea or law, but mostly it's a group of ideas and laws which are designed to change the way our civil justice system works. After careful examination of several sites and blogs, it is obvious that Tort Reform is extremely controversial. Several articles aimed at providing a neutral explanation of what individual tort reform measures are, and the effect they will have on the court system and on citizens, if we are not careful when we vote for these types of policy changes. (Admin,

Controversial topics exist in nearly every industry, but perhaps none more dramatic and differentiated than those issues in the Healthcare industry. Legal and ethical dilemmas are constantly present within the Healthcare industry, so it is important to understand the governing laws and that there is an understandable diversity of opinions on these sensitive topics, which can lead to differing opinions about the “right” thing to do in a particular situation (Harris, 2008). One such topic is that of a patient’s right to refuse treatment. The right to refuse medical treatment in the United States of America is typically traced back to the judicial opinions of court cases: Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891), which held that all individual’s had the right to possession and control of his person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law, and Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (N.Y. 1914), which went a step further and stated that a surgeon who performs an operation without patient’s consent commits an assault, for which they are liable in damages (Standler, 2012). There are numerous court cases and various opinions on the topic of a patient’s right to refuse medical treatment, and this type of constant criticism leads to changes in law, the healthcare industry temperament, physician behavior, and patient treatment. Through legal action there has been a precedence

In the American legal system, cases based off civil wrongs are known as Torts. These cases have multiple variances of descriptions which help to determine the exact element of each tort. This document will focus on negligence. A complete definition will be provided, followed a personal first hand experience. The concluding summary will be a brief overview of the information provided. Please note, the personal account does not include a complete litigation process. Only a description of events leading up to my decision not to prosecute. All definitions, facts, reference material, and ideas will focus on torts, as well as tort reform.