Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Further Perspectives On Corporate Wrongdoing, In Pari Delicto, And Auditor Malpractice, Deborah A. Demott
Further Perspectives On Corporate Wrongdoing, In Pari Delicto, And Auditor Malpractice, Deborah A. Demott
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
Most Claims Settle: Implications For Alternative Dispute Resolution From A Profile Of Medical-Malpractice Claims In Florida, Neil Vidmar, Mirya Holman, Paul Lee
Most Claims Settle: Implications For Alternative Dispute Resolution From A Profile Of Medical-Malpractice Claims In Florida, Neil Vidmar, Mirya Holman, Paul Lee
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
My Lawyer Told Me To Say I'M Sorry: Lawyers, Doctors, And Medical Apologies, Peter B. Knapp
My Lawyer Told Me To Say I'M Sorry: Lawyers, Doctors, And Medical Apologies, Peter B. Knapp
Faculty Scholarship
The role of apologies in litigation has received a great deal of attention in the last ten years. This is particularly true of “medical apologies,” those expressions of regret and, in some cases, admissions of responsibility made by health care professionals. Two recent trends have prompted examination of medical apologies. First, widely reported empirical studies suggest that patients and their families may be less likely to bring malpractice lawsuits following adverse outcomes if treating physicians have apologized. Second, over about the past ten years, two-thirds of the states have adopted statutes that exclude these apologies from evidence if there is …
Juries And Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts Versus Myths, Neil Vidmar
Juries And Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts Versus Myths, Neil Vidmar
Faculty Scholarship
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, anti-doctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled …
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 …
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 …