I was reading this piece in the Boston Globe about a new malpractice proposal. Of course, Studdert’s malpractice findings are trotted out:

A study released by the Harvard School of Public Health earlier this month found that about 40 percent of the medical malpractice cases filed in the United States are groundless. Many of the lawsuits analyzed contained no evidence that a medical error was committed or that the patient suffered any injury, the researchers reported.

The vast majority of those dubious cases were dismissed with no payout to the patient. However, groundless lawsuits still accounted for 15 percent of the money paid out in settlements or verdicts.

A 40 percent groundless case rate and a 15 percent chance of a payday in these baseless cases – sounds pretty broken to me. But here’s the next paragraph:

The study’s lead researcher, David Studdert of the Harvard School of Public Health, said the findings challenge the view among tort reform supporters that the legal system is riddled with frivolous claims that lead to exorbitant payouts.

Huh? Again, Studdert’s biased conclusions completely go against the results of his own study.