This study uses a framework in which disputants' litigation decisions are based on optimizing expected returns and minimizing losses to analyze outcomes of medical malpractice disputes—the probability of payment, stage of resolution, and amounts paid, based on closed medical malpractice claims from Florida and jury verdict reporter abstracts from five jurisdictions. Using judgments of an expert panel and other indicators, the analysis reveals that cases are more likely to result in paid claims when the defendant appears to be liable. By contrast, cases brought to satisfy a claimant motive of vindication are less likely to result in payment; such cases have a higher probability of being tried. Claimants with more serious injuries tend to receive higher payments. Payment appears equitable vertically, but there is appreciable variability in payment for similar injuries which may reflect horizontal inequities.
INTRODUCTION: THE CENTRAL ROLE OF JURIES Liability for personal injury has become big business.' According to some, it is also a rotten business. 2 At the head of the long line of complainants stands the medical profession, objecting that doctors and hospitals are too often unfairly singled out to pay excessive damages. 3 By far the most common type of liability case is the automobile tort. 4 Thus, automobile cases (of course omitting claims for property damage) are the natural benchmark against which to compare other types of personal
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.