Indiana's Malpractice System: No-Fault by Accident?

Kinney, Eleanor D.; Gronfein, William

doi:10.2307/1191858

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies involving the observation of deliberating jurors (Hans & Lofquist, 1992) and posttrial interviews with jurors (Guinther, 1988) have found that “jurors who were doubtful about liability often compromised with the other jurors on liability in exchange for a reduced award” (Hans & Lofquist, 1992, p. 97). Kinney and Gronfein's (1991) findings also are consistent with discounting for uncertainty about the defendant's liability: Damages awards made by a medical malpractice compensation panel that knew nothing about the liability evidence in the case were higher than awards made by juries, judges, lawyers, and claims adjustors who were aware of the liability evidence and its attendant uncertainties.…”

Section: The Effect Of Defendant and Plaintiff Responsibility On Awardssupporting

confidence: 70%

Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities.

Wissler¹,

Kuehn

Saks

2000

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors consider instructions that courts do or could give to jurors to guide them in making awards for general damages in civil litigation. The authors review the nature and content of current instructions about the factors that should (or should not) affect jurors' awards, as well as the limited body of empirical research on the impact of these instructions. The most noteworthy feature of current instructions regarding damages is the lack of guidance they provide. The consequence appears to be awards that have considerable variability and that are influenced by improper considerations. The authors also discuss research on the effectiveness of alternative forms of jury instructions and trial procedures in preventing or reducing these problems.

show abstract

Section: The Effect Of Defendant and Plaintiff Responsibility On Awardssupporting

confidence: 70%

Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities.

Wissler¹,

Kuehn

Saks

2000

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Kinney and Gronfein's findings (Kinney & Gronfein, 1991) also support a discounting explanation. When damages decisions were made by a medical malpractice compensation panel, which knew nothing about the liability evidence in the case, awards were significantly higher than when damages decisions were made by juries, judges, lawyers, and claims adjustors who were aware of the liability evidence.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages.

Wissler

Rector

Saks

2001

Law and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined whether special jury instructions or the bifurcation of liability and compensation decisions would counter the tendency for evidence concerning the defendant's liability to affect damages awards. Mock jurors made liability and award decisions in response to a case description in which the level of defendant responsibility for the plaintiff's injuries and the type or timing of damages instructions were systematically varied. Instructions not to discount awards for uncertainty about the defendant's fault and instructions not to increase awards to punish the defendant's carelessness reduced the impact of the defendant's conduct on awards, while bifurcation did not. Additional findings suggest, at least in the context of the present study, that discounting may be a somewhat more potent process than surcharging. Possible explanations for these effects are discussed.Jurors hearing a tort case are required to determine both the issues of liability and compensatory damages. The law expects the jurors to decide the issue of the defendant's liability without regard to the severity of the plaintiff's losses. For liability, the usual and essential question is: Did the defendant negligently cause the plaintiff's injuries? In addition, once a defendant has been found liable, the amount of damages is to be decided without regard to the extent of the defendant's negligence. In deciding the amount of damages to award, the essential question is: What amount is necessary to restore the plaintiff to the condition he or she was in before the accident? In short, the law treats the issues of liability and compensatory damages as independent of each other (Kalven, 1958;Schwartz, 1994).Research on jury decision-making, however, has shown that these decisions might not be made independently, but that liability evidence might have an impact on compensatory awards. This spillover of liability evidence into damages awards

show abstract

“…In an evaluation of the severe claims experience in Indiana compared with that of neighboring states without damage caps, investigators found that under the Indiana reforms only a small fraction of claims went before medical review panels for their determination of liability and that large claims resulted in comparatively generous compensation. 16 These results surprised some observers. The investigators suggested that the Indiana cap may have inadvertently verged on a no-fault system for large claims.…”

Section: Understanding and Refining The Legal Systemmentioning

confidence: 89%

Addressing the Malpractice Problem: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Programs

Cantor

Wadlington

1994

Health Affairs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation (RWJF) Medical Malpractice Program was established in 1985 after a decade of fears that injuries to patients and the system of compensation for such injuries could have a severe, adverse impact on physicians and health institutions. Medical professionals' frustration over rising costs and decreasing availability of liability insurance produced political pressures that led to legislative responses in many states-even though there was only limited understanding of the extent of malpractice, its underlying causes, and the potential effects of many responses on health care delivery and medically injured persons. 1Addressing medical malpractice problems was a logical development for the foundation because the issue was consistent with its concerns about access to affordable, high-quality medical care. The objectives of the Medical Malpractice Program thus were to develop and analyze reliable data on the incidence and characteristics of medical malpractice and its impact on health care delivery, to evaluate responses, and to develop new or improved strategies for reducing medical injury and adequately compensating medically injured persons.This essay summarizes the accomplishments of the Medical Malpractice Program, points out some remaining gaps in the research literature, and describes a new RWJF initiative in this area. Assessing The Accomplishments Of The Program

show abstract

Indiana's Malpractice System: No-Fault by Accident?

Cited by 10 publications

References 0 publications

Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities.

Instructing jurors on general damages in personal injury cases: Problems and possibilities.

The impact of jury instructions on the fusion of liability and compensatory damages.

Addressing the Malpractice Problem: The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation's Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About