Getting it: The USA Today supports health courts
“Opponents say the right to trial by jury is too important to give up. But special courts already handle tax, bankruptcy, maritime and family disputes without juries.
The national malpractice roulette is inefficient and unjust. Health courts could show the way for quicker and fairer compensation to the deserving, and they might reduce the incentive for doctors to engage in defensive medicine that puts patients at risk.”
Related posts:
- Should severe birth injuries be pulled out of the court system, and can defensive medicine be good?
- Physicians don’t trust the malpractice system and why doctors order too many tests
- Will reforming the malpractice system be a deal breaker for health reform?
- Health courts redux
- Doctors and lawyers agree on a malpractice bill
- Are physicians overtreating?
- Malpractice settlements: "A legalized form of extortion"
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 3 comments }
The opposing view:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-07-04-oppose_x.htm
Tax, bankruptcy, maritime, and family law cases don’t involve the VIIth Amendment to the Constitution, either. How sad that people advocate changing the Constitution so insurers can make a few more dollars.
And based on assertions with no basis in fact, either. “Health courts could SHOW THE WAY?” What does that mean?
Divorce suits heard in family court obviously have more at stake than $20. That would appear under your reasoning to violate the 7th amendment. Criminal maritime cases in some circumstances appear to violate the 6th amendment under your argument.
It seems the hurdle of the 7th amendment could be cleared to create health courts without changing the constitution.
Anyway, they’re inevitable in some states I think…I suppose the fight is valiant to keep arguing against them on principle however.
They’re not inevitable because they clearly violate the constitution. The cause of action of negligence originated in common law. What’s more, there is literally no evidence they would be an improvement. Besides, insurers aren’t pushing them, so there isn’t enough political oomph to get anywhere with them.
Family court is not applicable because it doesn’t involve cases which were recognized at common law. Those have always been purely statutory creations. What’s more, you’re seeking an equitable distribution of assets, not asking for damages.
What criminal maritime cases are you referring to?
Comments on this entry are closed.