Torts Commons^™

Challenging Race-Based Health Care Discrimination: A New Private Right Of Action, Aaron Pinkett

Northwestern University Law Review

The Hippocratic Oath calls on doctors to “do no harm.” Yet we know from extensive public health research that clinicians repeatedly cause harm to Black patients by dismissing their medical concerns, misdiagnosing them, and undertreating their pain. These practices of differential treatment for Black patients have led to steadily increasing racial disparities in health care outcomes throughout the United States. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits this type of disparate impact, but modern Supreme Court jurisprudence forecloses opportunities for affected parties to seek legal relief—despite the clearly established legislative intent of Title VI. However, another legal …

Customary Corruption, Ani B. Satz, Liza Vertinsky

Faculty Articles

For over a hundred years, it has been well-accepted among tort scholars that physicians—as one of the legally recognized professions— determine their own customary practices. Within tort law, and medical malpractice more specifically, customary practice establishes whether physicians breach or uphold the required standard of care toward their patients. The results of our hand-coded examination of decided cases and statutes show a more complex picture. While some states have endeavored to shift the standard away from professional custom, it continues to play a critical, and in many cases a determinative, role in establishing physician liability in most states.

Using illustrative …

Blouin V. Koster, 319 A.3d 654 (R.I. 2024), Drew A. Mondi

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Armour V. Bader, 316 A.3d 1164 (R.I. 2024), Caroline Stanton Chlaupek

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Burns V. Smith: Assessing The Sufficiency Of Affidavits Supporting Prejudgment Attachments In Medical Malpractice Actions, Margaret Christie Kenney

Maine Law Review

The process of attachment allows a plaintiff to request that the court bring a defendant's property into the court's custody for the purpose of satisfying any subsequent judgment that the plaintiff may obtain. In Maine, a plaintiff may proceed either with notice to the defendant or ex parte. In order to proceed ex parte, by which only the plaintiff appears before the court without notice to the defendant, the plaintiff must satisfy the requirements of Rule 4A of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4A embodies two distinct safeguards for defendants whose property a plaintiff seeks to attach ex …

Ending The Never-Ending Medical Malpractice Crisis, Allen Redlich

Maine Law Review

Another nationwide outbreak of what is commonly called the medical malpractice "crisis" is spreading. Once again, as during prior episodes, the public hears of dramatic increases in the cost of malpractice insurance, of growing numbers of multimillion dollar awards, and of increases in the number of suits filed. Already several states have passed statutes in attempts to resolve the crisis. This crisis atmosphere resembles the crisis of the mid-seventies when every state enacted so-called "remedial" statutes, which failed to solve the crisis. A physician would define a "crisis" as a turning point in the course of a disease; nonmedical definitions …

Joy V. Eastern Maine Medical Center: Extension Of A Physician's Duty To Third Parties, Timothy H. Norton

Maine Law Review

In Joy v. Eastern Maine Medical Center, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that a claimant may sue a physician to recover damages for injuries that were caused by a negligently treated patient. The Law Court focused its analysis on the concept of duty and reasoned that a physician's duty to his patient extends to third parties whose injuries are a foreseeable result of negligent treatment. The Joy case sets forth a broad rule that provides a new and untested means of recovery against physicians and hospitals. This Note examines the new rule against the …

Milton V. Cary Medical Center: A Viable Fetus Is Not A Person Under Maine's Wrongful Death Statute, Stan Piecuch

Maine Law Review

In Milton v. Cary Medical Center, a sharply divided Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, refused to recognize a right of action for the wrongful death of a viable fetus. The court held that a viable fetus is not a person for purposes of applying Maine's wrongful death statute and that, consequently, the mother of a stillborn child could not maintain an action for the child's death. The court determined that the legislative history of the statute indicated that the Legislature did not intend the remedy to apply in the case of a child not born alive. …

Noonan V. Sambandam, 296 A.3d 670 (R.I. 2023)., Grant E. Mooney

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Vecchio V. Women & Infants Hosp., 293 A.3d 842 (R.I. 2023)., Kailey Chalmers

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Navigating The Frontiers Of Medtech, Benjamin Sundholm

Faculty Publications

The medical community is increasingly focused on the rise of adaptive and opaque artificial intelligence tools. These systems improve over time but produce results through complex calculations that are difficult for humans to fully understand. Although promising, these features challenge existing legal doctrines. To date, efforts to overcome these challenges have been too fragmented and limited in scope. As a result, the full promise of adaptive and opaque artificial intelligence systems remains untapped.

This Article proposes a framework for unleashing the potential of these systems through a blend of forward- and backward-looking reforms. The ex ante feature of my framework …

How Covid-19 Put The Spotlight On The Emtala, Ikra Kafayat

Touro Law Review

There was a time when those that were unable to afford medical care risked being denied treatment in emergency situations. Before Congress passed Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act (EMTALA), patients were being transferred to different hospitals, without being screened, because they did not have insurance and could not afford the treatment. Hospitals are no longer allowed to transport patients without properly screening and stabilizing them. Patients can bring a suit against a hospital if they believe the hospital violated EMTALA, however, in certain circuits the patient will need to prove that hospital had an “improper motive” for failing to …

Patient Decision Aids Improve Patient Safety And Reduce Medical Liability Risk, Thaddeus Pope

Faculty Scholarship

Tort-based doctrines of informed consent have utterly failed to assure that patients understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the healthcare they receive. Fifty years of experience with the doctrine of informed consent have shown it to be an abject catastrophe. Most patients lack an even minimal understanding of their treatment options. But there is hope. Substantial evidence shows that patient decision aids (PDAs) and shared decision making can bridge the gap between the theory and practice of informed consent. These evidence-based educational tools empower patients to make decisions with significantly more knowledge and less decisional conflict than clinician-patient discussions …

Feres: The “Double-Edged Sword”, Kaitlan Price

Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)

In Feres v. United States, the Supreme Court barred service members from suing the Government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if the injuries occurred “incident to military service.” In establishing this doctrine, the Court discussed the necessity of protecting the military from lawsuits to ensure effective decision-making by military leaders.

Scholars have harshly criticized Feres in the modern era, arguing Feres must be overturned to provide service members with a greater opportunity for recovery. Specifically, many scholars admonish Feres because the Supreme Court failed to provide a clear definition of “incident to military service.” Lacking a clear definition …

Jewish Law And The Concept Of Negligence, Steven F. Friedell

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Malpractice-Based Duty To Disclose The Risk Of Stillbirth: A Response To Lens, Nadia N. Sawicki

Faculty Publications & Other Works

In Medical Paternalism, Stillbirth, & Blindsided Mothers, Lens argues that physicians who fail to disclose the risk of stillbirth to pregnant patients should be liable under the doctrine of informed consent. In this Response, I suggest that courts might be hesitant to expand informed consent in the way Lens proposes. Instead, I offer an alternative avenue for imposing liability, via traditional theories of medical malpractice.

Torts: Just Walk Away: How An Overbroad Foreseeability Of Harm Standard Could Kill “Curbside Consultations” — Warren V. Dinter, 926 N.W.2d 370 (Minn. 2019), Erika Miller

Mitchell Hamline Law Review

No abstract provided.

"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 …

When Ais Outperform Doctors: Confronting The Challenges Of A Tort-Induced Over-Reliance On Machine Learning, A. Michael Froomkin, Ian Kerr, Joelle Pineau

Articles

Someday, perhaps soon, diagnostics generated by machine learning (ML) will have demonstrably better success rates than those generated by human doctors. What will the dominance of ML diagnostics mean for medical malpractice law, for the future of medical service provision, for the demand for certain kinds of doctors, and in the long run for the quality of medical diagnostics itself?

This Article argues that once ML diagnosticians, such as those based on neural networks, are shown to be superior, existing medical malpractice law will require superior ML-generated medical diagnostics as the standard of care in clinical settings. Further, unless implemented …

2018 Survey Of Rhode Island Case Law

Roger Williams University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Healthism In Tort Law, Elizabeth Weeks

Scholarly Works

This article draws on the author's recently published book, Healthism: Health Status Discrimination and the Law (with Jessica L. Roberts) (Cambridge University Press 2018), examining tort law doctrine and policy for examples of differential treatment of health status or behaviors. Just as scholars previously have drawn attention to discrimination based on race, sex, age, and other protected categories in tort law, the article urges similar examination of tort law's potential to discriminate against the unhealthy. The article discusses the potential for healthism in the reasonably prudent person standard of care, contributory negligence, assumption of the risk, noneconomic damages caps, impaired …

Medical Malpractice Compensation Reform, Ruby Dean

Political Science Undergraduate Honors Theses

Tort reform legislation is a topic that has been discussed and studied heavily in the states of Texas and California. This is because it has been claimed that these states have had success in bringing more doctors into the states. This thesis studies those states, as well as the state of Arkansas. It examines Arkansas because tort reform legislation was an issue brought up in the most recent election in November 2018 in that state. Although Arkansas’ tort reform ballot measure was removed from the ballot by the Supreme Court of Arkansas, a similar measure could still be brought forth …

Maine Physician Practice Guidelines: Implications For Medical Malpractice Litigation, Jennifer S. Begel

Maine Law Review

This Article assesses the use of physician practice guidelines as a vehicle for medical malpractice tort reform and focuses upon the State of Maine's legislation incorporating physician practice parameters into the defense of medical malpractice litigation. The Maine Medical Liability Demonstration Project (the “Demonstration Project”) legislatively adopts practice guidelines in four different medical specialties and allows physicians in those specialties to assert compliance with the applicable guideline as an affirmative defense. The affirmative defense of compliance with such guidelines has been touted as a means of protecting physicians from, and decreasing the costs associated with, medical malpractice litigation. While the …

The Failure Of “Sorry”: An Empirical Evaluation Of Apology Laws, Health Care, And Medical Malpractice, Benjamin J. Mcmichael

Lewis & Clark Law Review

As part of the effort to contain the size and frequency of medical malpractice claims, many states have adopted apology laws. These laws make apologies from physicians to patients inadmissible in any subsequent court proceedings. The basic rationale behind apology laws is that meritless malpractice claims are less likely to be filed when a physician can apologize to his or her patient without risking those statements being used in court. Through the use of a unique dataset, this Article corrects several misunderstandings concerning this new generation of tort reform.

First, it shows that while apology laws may reduce the frequency …

Choosing Medical Malpractice, Nadia N. Sawicki

Faculty Publications & Other Works

Modern principles of patient autonomy and health care consumerism are at odds with medical malpractice law's traditional skepticism towards the defenses of contractual waiver and assumption of risk. Many American courts follow a patient-protective view, exemplified by the reasoning in the seminal Tunkl case, rejecting any attempts by physicians to relieve themselves of liability on the grounds of a patient's agreement to assume the risk of malpractice. However, where patients pursue unconventional treatments that satisfy their personal preferences but that arguably fall outside the standard of care, courts have good reason to be more receptive to such defenses. This Article …

Negligence Per Se Theories In Pharmaceutical & Medical Device Litigation, Andrew E. Costa

Maine Law Review

The notion of addressing the vagaries of negligence per se theories in the context of pharmaceutical and medical device litigation seems to promise little more than a monograph anesthetized by a body of obscure pharmaceutical and medical device provisions viewed through the lenses of various states' negligence law. Maybe little more than that can be assured. However, the issue of how courts should address negligence per se theories in this context implicates a variety of “larger” (or, possibly, more interesting) legal issues in general and pharmaceutical and medical device litigation in particular. Perhaps foremost among these issues is the interaction …

The Net Effects Of Medical Malpractice Tort Reform On Health Insurance Losses, W. Kip Viscusi, Patricia H. Born, J. Bradley Karl

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this paper, we examine the influence of medical malpractice tort reform on the level of private health insurance company losses incurred. We employ a natural experiment framework centered on a series of tort reform measures enacted in Texas in 2003 that drastically altered the medical malpractice environment in the state. The results of a difference-in-differences analysis using a variety of comparison states, as well as a difference-in-difference-in-differences analysis, indicate that ameliorating medical malpractice risk has little effect on health insurance losses incurred by private health insurers.

Unconstitutional Asymmetry Or A Rational Basis For Inconsistency? The Admissibility Of Medical Malpractice Prelitigation Screening Panel Findings Before And After Smith V. Hawthorne I And Ii, Matthew Asnault Morris

Maine Law Review

Pre-litigation screening panels have been instrumental in streamlining medical malpractice litigation in the State of Maine by culling claims from superior court dockets, encouraging settlements, and providing findings of fact that could prove useful for a jury if the case proceeds to trial. In enacting one particular provision governing the confidentiality and the admissibility of the screening panel process, however, the legislature may have sacrificed the constitutional rights of medical malpractice claimants in favor of a lighter docket. Two recent cases before the Law Court, Smith I and II, have challenged the constitutionality of Maine’s unique statutory approach to the …

Tipping The Scales?: Maine Adopts The Continuing Negligent Treatment Doctrine In Baker V. Farrand, Michael P. Beers

Maine Law Review

In Baker v. Farrand, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court, sitting as the Law Court, held that for a series of related negligent acts or omissions committed by a health care provider or practitioner, a single cause of action “accrues” under the Maine Health Security Act (hereinafter MHSA) on the date of the last act or omission that contributed to the plaintiff’s injury. Hence, in situations where a physician provides continuing negligent treatment to a patient in which each and every one of the physician’s actions are negligent, the MHSA’s three-year statute of limitations does not begin to run until the …

Trial And Error: Legislating Adr For Medical Malpractice Reform, Lydia Nussbaum

Maryland Law Review

The U.S. healthcare system has a problem: hundreds of thousands of people die each year, and over a million are injured, by medical mistakes that could have been avoided. Furthermore, over ninety percent of these patients and their families never learn of the errors or receive redress. This problem persists, despite myriad reforms to the medical malpractice system, because of lawmakers’ dominant focus on reducing providers’ liability insurance costs. Reform objectives are beginning to change, however, and the vehicle for implementing these changes is alternative dispute resolution (“ADR”). Historically, legislatures deployed ADR to curb malpractice litigation and restrict patients’ access …