Health Affairs, 23, no. 4 (2004): 33-41 doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.23.4.33 © 2004 by Project HOPE	New Online   House Health Reform Bill   Paying for Reform   Vetting AHIP's Report   HIV/AIDS Costs   Brief: Insurance Reform   HA Blog Top 10

This Article Full Text (HTML) Reprint (PDF) Submit a response to this article Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services E-mail this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to My Personal Archive Download to Citation Manager Reprints & Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Struve, C. T. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Struve, C. T. Related Collections Health Reform Legal/Regulatory Issues Physicians Consumer Issues

Malpractice Crisis

Improving The Medical Malpractice Litigation Process

Critics charge that judges and juries are incompetent to address medical liability issues. Some advocate shifting authority away from ordinary judges and juries, either by appointing "expert" decisionmakers, such as "medical screening panels" or specialized "medical courts," or by instituting caps on damages. Problems with the tort liability system may weigh in favor of a shift to a no-fault administrative compensation system. If the current fault-based system is retained, however, policymakers should not adopt half-measures by creating "expert" panels or "expert" courts. Rather, they should better equip the existing decisionmakers to deal with liability and damages questions.

                      What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. M. Harris and C.-C. Wu Medical Malpractice in the People's Republic of China: The 2002 Regulation on the Handling of Medical Accidents J. Law Med. Ethics, September 1, 2005; 33(3): 456 - 477. [PDF]