Give them a chance, says Mark Crane. Great op-ed:
Juries of ordinary citizens generally aren’t asked to decide complex legal disputes about maritime cases, tax law, bankruptcy, workers’ compensation, divorce and child custody matters. And for good reason. While the principle of trial by jury is sacrosanct in America, basic fairness and common sense demand that such highly technical issues require expertise from witnesses and judges experienced in dealing with them.That’s not so for cases involving allegations of medical malpractice, which are no less complicated but still left in the hands of lay jurors with little knowledge of medicine. Trials often amount to a game of roulette. Jurors hear testimony from dueling expert witnesses””hired guns who favor one party’s interpretation of events. The most personable witness may sway a jury no matter how fanciful his theories are. Jurors receive little guidance from judges as to how to evaluate that testimony or how much to compensate deserving plaintiffs.
(via Overlawyered)
Related posts:
- More on why health courts make sense
- Health courts help the plaintiffs?
- Health courts, and how they can save our health care system
- If health reformers want to emulate Canada and Europe, can we copy their malpractice systems too?
- The Hurwitz jury: "I went into this blind and came out wishing I was"
- Fighting back against frivolous malpractice cases
- Using the layman juror to the plaintiff lawyer’s advantage
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 11 comments }
The catastrophic consequences of such an experiment are reviewed.
http://supremacyclaus.blogspot.com/2007/08/problems-with-health-court-proposal.html
I agree. I think all complex things should have their own courts where the defendants judge their own.
Let’s start with physicians’ claims for reimbursement against health insurers. Whenever the physicians think they have not been properly reimbursed, we’ll need a jury of adjusters to make the call.
Oh, and this expert jury of adjusters will need to be paid by the taxpayers, so we’ll need to raise taxes.
I think in many cases, doctors would be harsher judges than are juries. The problem with juries is that they are so unpredictably irrational and therefore frightening to hold your fate. The average American is not especially noteworthy for precise reasoning. Juries are composed only of those not smart enough of weasel out of jury duty, and their IQ is further reduced by the group think process and the brain-killing boredom of the court room.
On the other hand, in this state, the main contributors to judges elections are the trial lawyers, to whomt they are thereby beholden for their continuation of their jobs which earn them very generous pensions.
“Let’s start with physicians’ claims for reimbursement against health insurers. Whenever the physicians think they have not been properly reimbursed, we’ll need a jury of adjusters to make the call.”
Stip exaggerating. Above it is pointed out that divorce and child custody matters are handled by special courts. How do you ignore this in concluding that the current system is “just fine”? Doctors dont sue EVERYTIME they feel they were underreimbursed. Get a life.
Divorce and child custody matters aren’t handled by “special” courts. They’re the same courts, just no jury. They don’t get a jury because they’re not “suits at common law” and protected by the 4th Amendment.
Patients don’t sue everytime a physician is negligent, either. What’s your point?
As to juries allegedly being irrational, says who? What evidence is there that they are any more irrational than judges, or physicians? Where is this proof?
As for how smart they are, Anon 7:40 shouldn’t have such contempt for his fellow man. Perhaps he’s not as bright as he thinks. I’d bet he’s a physician, though, with that attitude.
“Stop exaggerating.”
Who is exaggerating? Why shouldn’t every industry be entitled to judge themselves like physicians want to be? And at taxpayer expense for their experts?
Every industry??? Why would a plumber be suing someone or getting sued for millions of dollars for technical issues that no one could understand? Or electricians? Or mathematicians? Are there a lot of people suing in cases lie these? Do lawyers specialize in such cases because they are so lucrative or prevalent?
Of course not. We know med mal is much bigger and since the degree takes years of knowledge and experience to obtain, unlike so many others, every profession DOESNT need courts, becuase they dont hinge on such complicated topics and unlucky circumstance.
And the useless people who “argue for arguments’ sake” on here know this. So stop being obtuse for no reason.
Engineers-including mechanical, electrical, petroleum, etc, insurers, attorneys, general contractors, architects, just off the top of my head.
How many people who do other jobs can tell you what they do and how they do it any easier than they can tell you what a physician does?
There are many legal malpractice cases, and there are innumerable cases involving defective design of products, buildings, etc. And there are innumerable cases involving insurance bad faith which require the juries to interpret the byzantine world of insurance contracts. Including insurance contracts that dictate how much physicians get paid for medical procedures. There are lawyers who specialize in every one of those areas.
So why shouldn’t they get their own courts, complete with taxpayer subsidized experts who just happen to work in the same industry as the defendant?
But those lawyers dont advertise on TV, appealing to rock-bottom emotionalism to cloud sicentific discussion. Those cases are BORING. And usually the plaintiffs AND the defendents are wealthy. There’s no “little guy” to feel sorry for most of the time.
So no, they do not need special courts. Too much emotion rests with every human being over medical care/ Very little emotion is tied up in insurance contracts.
It is very different. But I can’t convince you of that I guess.
What does advertising have to do with it? You have a First Amendment issue, take it up with the Founders. Doesn’t mean you should get special treatment.
“Those cases are BORING. And usually the plaintiffs AND the defendents are wealthy. “
The jury doesn’t know the respective wealth of the parties unless punitives are involved. Do you think medical malpractice is exciting? You think you should get special courts based on the level of jurors’ excitement?
Very little emotion is tied up in insurance contracts? So the 900,000 doctors who’ve sued health insurers aren’t emotional about the money they’ve lost?
Let your house get burned down and then have the insurer deny you based on a clause in your contract and see how emotional you are.
Do you have any concept of the world outside your own life?
Again, it’s the nature of the cases. MOST medical malpractice cases are about the emotional aspects of death/disease/children suffering. Of course there are SOME cases in these other areas which are emotional, but the VAST MAJORITY of the med mal cases are emotionally wrought.
This is the point that you don’t agree with. You;ve convinced yourself they are equal. So forget it.
Comments on this entry are closed.