Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 8 of 8
Full-Text Articles in Law
An Empirical Assessment Of Early Offer Reform For Medical Malpractice, W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, Joel Huber
An Empirical Assessment Of Early Offer Reform For Medical Malpractice, W. Kip Viscusi, Wesley A. Magat, Joel Huber
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The early offer reform proposal for medical malpractice provides an option for claimants to receive prompt payment of all their net economic losses and reasonable attorney fees. Using a large sample of closed individual medical malpractice claims from Texas supplemented by data from Florida, this article provides an empirical assessment of the consequences of the early offer reform. Noneconomic damages make up about two-thirds of paid claim amounts. The minimum payment amount for serious injuries will affect the magnitude of insurer savings and claimant compensation. Payments to claimants will be expedited by 2 years by the early offer reform, and …
Medical Malpractice Overseas: The Legal Uncertainty Surrounding Medical Tourism, Philip Mirrer-Singer
Medical Malpractice Overseas: The Legal Uncertainty Surrounding Medical Tourism, Philip Mirrer-Singer
Law and Contemporary Problems
Mirrer-Singer explores some of the legal uncertainty surrounding medical tourism specifically in ways medical tourists can seek relief in US courts for malpractice committed abroad and explains why courts probably lack jurisdiction over foreign physicians who have allegedly committed malpractice. Among other things, he discusses theories under which US firms in the medical-tourism business could be held liable for the foreign provider's negligence.
The Check Isn't In The Mail: The Inadequacy Of State Prompt Pay Statutes, Michael Flynn
The Check Isn't In The Mail: The Inadequacy Of State Prompt Pay Statutes, Michael Flynn
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award? Post-Verdict Haircuts In Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988–2003, David A. Hyman, Bernard Black, Kathryn Zeiler, Charles Silver, William M. Sage
Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award? Post-Verdict Haircuts In Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988–2003, David A. Hyman, Bernard Black, Kathryn Zeiler, Charles Silver, William M. Sage
Faculty Scholarship
Legal scholars, legislators, policy advocates, and the news media frequently use jury verdicts to draw conclusions about the performance of the tort system. However, actual payouts can differ greatly from verdicts. We report evidence on post-verdict payouts from the most comprehensive longitudinal study of matched jury verdicts and payouts. Using data on all insured medical malpractice claims in Texas from 1988–2003 in which the plaintiff received at least $25,000 (in 1988 dollars) following a jury trial, we find that most jury awards received “haircuts.” Seventy-five percent of plaintiffs received a payout less than the adjusted verdict (jury verdict plus prejudgment …
Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award - Post-Verdict Haircuts In Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988-2003, David A. Hyman, Bernard S. Black, Kathryn Zeiler, Charles Silver, William M. Sage
Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award - Post-Verdict Haircuts In Texas Medical Malpractice Cases, 1988-2003, David A. Hyman, Bernard S. Black, Kathryn Zeiler, Charles Silver, William M. Sage
Faculty Scholarship
Legal scholars, legislators, policy advocates, and the news media frequently use jury verdicts to draw conclusions about the performance of the tort system. However actual payouts can differ greatly from verdicts. We report evidence on post-verdict payouts from the most comprehensive longitudinal study of matched jury verdicts and payouts. Using data on all insured medical malpractice claims in Texas from 1988-2003 in which the plaintiff received at least $25,000 (in 1988 dollars) following a jury trial, we find that most jury awards received "haircuts." Seventy-five percent of plaintiffs received a payout less than the adjusted verdict (jury verdict plus pre-judgment …
What We Know About Malpractice Settlements, Philip G. Peters Jr.
What We Know About Malpractice Settlements, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Faculty Publications
The enclosed article is the first comprehensive synthesis of two decades of empirical research on medical malpractice settlement. The portrait that emerges from this synthesis is both more reassuring and more complex than popular portrayals. Although the fit is not perfect, the merits generally drive the settlement process. Weak claims consistently fare the worst, toss-ups cases do better, and strong cases have the most success.Prior scholarship on malpractice outcomes has understated the strength of this correlation because it has focused principally on the impact of negligence on the settlement rates and has largely ignored the importance of settlement amount. The …
An Empirical Assessment Of Early Offer Reform For Medical Malpractice, Joni Hersch, W. Kip Viscusi
An Empirical Assessment Of Early Offer Reform For Medical Malpractice, Joni Hersch, W. Kip Viscusi
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
The early offer reform proposal for medical malpractice provides an option for claimants to receive prompt payment of all their net economic losses and reasonable attorney fees. Using a large sample of closed individual medical malpractice claims from Texas supplemented by data from Florida, this article provides an empirical assessment of the consequences of the early offer reform. Noneconomic damages make up about two-thirds of paid claim amounts. The minimum payment amount for serious injuries will affect the magnitude of insurer savings and claimant compensation. Payments to claimants will be expedited by 2 years by the early offer reform, and …
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Doctors & Juries, Philip G. Peters Jr.
Michigan Law Review
Physicians widely believe that jury verdicts are unfair. This Article tests that assumption by synthesizing three decades of jury research. Contrary to popular belief the data show that juries consistently sympathize more with doctors who are sued than with patients who sue them. Physicians win roughly half of the cases that expert reviewers believe physicians should lose and nearly all of the cases that experts feel physicians should win. Defendants and their hired experts, it turns out, are more successful than plaintiffs and their hired experts at persuading juries to reach verdicts contrary to the opinions of independent reviewers.