Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Empirical Evidence And Malpractice Litigation, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Empirical Evidence And Malpractice Litigation, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Faculty Publications
Critics of medical malpractice litigation believe that expert testimony is often anecdotal and biased. To remedy this problem, several have recently suggested that attorneys should provide and courts should seek reliable empirical evidence of actual clinical norms. Their suggestion should be welcomed. If our expectations are realistic and the design pitfalls are avoided, greater use of use of empirical research will improve the fairness of malpractice adjudication. At least in theory, it could be useful in both the "easy" cases (where it reveals that a consensus standard of care exists) and also some of the harder cases (where clinical practices …
Unwarranted Variations In The Quality Of Health Care: Can The Law Help Medicine Provide A Remedy/Remedies?, Philip G. Peters Jr., John E. Wennberg M.D.
Unwarranted Variations In The Quality Of Health Care: Can The Law Help Medicine Provide A Remedy/Remedies?, Philip G. Peters Jr., John E. Wennberg M.D.
Faculty Publications
This article reviews the essential findings of studies of variations in quality of care according to three categories of care: effective care, preference-sensitive care, and supply-sensitive care. It argues that malpractice liability and informed consent laws should be based on standards of practice that are appropriate to each category of care. In the case of effective care, the legal standard should be that virtually all of those in need should receive the treatment, whether or not it is currently customary to provide it. In the case of preference-sensitive care, the law should recognize the failure of the doctrine of informed …
The Role Of Jury In Modern Malpractice Law, Philip G. Peters Jr.
The Role Of Jury In Modern Malpractice Law, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Faculty Publications
This article explores the policy issues raised by the choice between a custom-based standard of care and a jury-determined reasonability standard. The author examines not only traditional legal arguments but also the recent findings of cognitive psychology, jury performance studies, and health industry research. Not surprisingly, this analysis reveals that both options are imperfect. However, the author cautiously recommends the reasonable physician standard. The revolutionary transformation of the health care industry in last quarter of a century has transferred considerable power from physicians to the health insurance industry, an industry that has not yet earned the privilege of self-regulation. Unlike …