Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Tort reform: a substantive change.

W H Mosberg1

  • 1Department of Neurological Surgery, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore.

Neurosurgery
|April 1, 1988
PubMed
Summary

Medical malpractice lawsuits increasingly focus on plaintiff compensation rather than proven negligence. This trend, driven by unrealistic expectations and disproportionate jury awards, deviates from assessing actual damages and fault.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Torulosis of the central nervous system; biochemical behavior of the causative organism.

Bulletin of the School of Medicine (Baltimore, Md.)·2014
Same author

Malformation of the cervical spine.

Medical bulletin. United States. Army. Forces in the European Theater. Office of the Theater Chief Surgeon·2010
Same author

Medical manpower needs at home and abroad.

Neurosurgery·1992
Same author

Foundation for International Education in Neurological Surgery, Inc. Report of Activities, 1988-1990.

Journal of neurosurgery·1991
Same author

No-fault insurance at home and abroad.

Neurosurgery·1990
Same author

The suicide of General Emory Upton: a case report.

Military medicine·1990

Area of Science:

  • Medical Law
  • Tort Reform
  • Legal Studies

Background:

  • The focus of medical malpractice litigation has shifted from establishing negligence to determining plaintiff compensation.
  • Unrealistic public expectations of medical infallibility, amplified by judicial practices, contribute to the current legal climate.
  • Jury awards in personal injury cases, particularly medical malpractice, are often perceived as disconnected from the actual damages incurred.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To analyze the evolving nature of medical malpractice claims and their legal underpinnings.
  • To examine the disconnect between perceived medical error, actual patient harm, and financial compensation.
  • To critique the current system of awarding damages in personal injury and medical malpractice cases.

Main Methods:

  • Qualitative analysis of legal precedents and judicial commentary in personal injury and medical malpractice cases.
  • Review of trends in jury award settlements and their correlation with established fault.
  • Examination of societal expectations regarding medical outcomes and their influence on legal judgments.

Main Results:

  • Litigation outcomes are increasingly driven by compensation demands rather than a rigorous assessment of defendant negligence.
  • Jury awards are sometimes influenced by the defendant's financial capacity rather than the severity of the plaintiff's injury.
  • A perceived requirement for medical infallibility leads to disproportionate settlements for minor breaches.

Conclusions:

  • The current trajectory of medical malpractice law prioritizes financial awards over accurate negligence assessment.
  • Reform is needed to realign jury awards with actual damages and establish realistic expectations of medical practice.
  • Addressing the gap between societal expectations and medical reality is crucial for a just legal system.

Related Experiment Videos