Law Commons^™

"Sorry" Is Never Enough: How State Apology Laws Fail To Reduce Medical Malpractice Liability Risk, W. Kip Viscusi, Benjamin J. Mcmichael, R. Lawrence Van Horn

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Based on case studies indicating that apologies from physicians to patients can promote healing, understanding, and dispute resolution, 38 states have sought to reduce litigation and medical malpractice liability by enacting apology laws. Apology laws facilitate apologies by making them inadmissible in subsequent malpractice trials.

The underlying assumption regarding the potential efficacy of these laws is that, after receiving an apology, patients will be less likely to pursue a malpractice claim and will be more likely to settle those claims that are filed. However, once a patient has been made aware that the physician has committed a medical error, the …

Medical Malpractice Reform: What Works And What Doesn't, W. Kip Viscusi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Concerns with medical malpractice liability costs have been a principal factor leading states to adopt a series of tort liability reforms. Medical malpractice premiums have been declining, creating less of a cost-based impetus for additional reforms. The most consistent empirical evidence indicating statistically significant effects of medical malpractice reforms has been for caps on non-economic damages. Damages caps reduce insurance losses and foster insurer profitability, consistent with the objective of caps. The impacts of caps are greatest for insurance companies that otherwise would have experienced the greatest losses in the state. However, caps may reduce payouts to plaintiffs, potentially reducing …

Medical Malpractice Litigation And Tort Reform: It's The Incentives, Stupid, David A. Hyman, Charles Silver

Vanderbilt Law Review

Health care providers and tort reformers invariably claim that the medical malpractice litigation system is rife with behaviors that are irrational, unpredictable, and counter-productive. They attack civil juries, asserting that verdicts are skyrocketing without reason, are highly variable, and bear little or no relation to the merits of plaintiffs' claims. They complain about patients, arguing that the few with valid claims sue rarely, while the many who receive non- negligent treatment sue all the time. They attack greedy lawyers, alleging that they rake in obscene profits by routinely filing frivolous complaints. They complain that compensation flows almost randomly, winding up …

A Fault-Based Administrative Alternative For Resolving Medical Malpractice Claims, Kirk B. Johnson, Carter G. Phillips, David Orentlicher Orentlicher M.D., Martin S. Hatlie

Vanderbilt Law Review

The recurring crises in medical malpractice litigation have been widely discussed and documented over the past two decades.' In response to these crises, a growing consensus has emerged among legislatures, government agencies, and scholars in favor of tort reform. Indeed, virtually every state has passed some tort reform legislation.'Despite the reforms, several serious problems persist in medical malpractice. The current tort system does not compensate injured patients adequately or equitably, nor does it deter negligent practices sufficiently. These failings occur despite the increasingly high costs to society of the tort system. Particularly troublesome is the impact of these crises on …