Half-assed screening of malpractice cases
“The House Judiciary Committee [in New Hampshire] is poised to recommend a compromise which would create a method for malpractice cases to be screened before going to trial in the hopes both sides can reach a settlement . . . It is a system based on one in Massachusetts, however, that state uses a panel comprised of a judge, lawyer and doctor to decide if a malpractice case has merit.
‘We tried to get a swift, simple system that will work,’ said Rep. Robert Rowe, R-Amherst, a retired attorney. ‘Who better than a judge to screen these cases?’”
Hmm, someone with medical training probably would be better – but maybe that’s just me. How is this different from a doctor deciding on legal malpractice cases?
Related posts:
- The Hurwitz jury: "I went into this blind and came out wishing I was"
- An abortion fails, mother sues doctors for costs to raise her child
- John Edwards calls reducing medical malpractice lawsuits a "good idea"
- The worst medical malpractice cases you can possibly imagine
- A juror faints, the defendants rush to help: A mistrial in the Charlie Weis case
- Air Force lawsuit: Rank outweighed medical experience
- Sore loser? A plaintiff’s attorney contends that the jury was "brainwashed"
{ 3 comments }
You need someone who understands the burden of proof and the evidentiary rules governing the admissibility of evidence, among other things.
It seems many physicians have no clue what the burden of proof is in these cases.
It seems that many lawyers have no idea about what constitutes true “malpractice”.
Exactly, that’s why you have the physician.
I would hope that the lawyer would have tried med mal cases for the plaintiff and the physician had testified as an expert for both sides in the field the case concerns.
Comments on this entry are closed.