Towards a Better Assessment of Pain and Suffering Damages

Karapanou, Vaia; Visscher, Louis

doi:10.1515/jetl.2010.48

Cited by 16 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Others acknowledge the difficulties in computing them, but argue that the focus should be on developing ways to make these damages more consistent (Avraham ). Despite the controversies regarding noneconomic damages, courts in different legal systems, such as the U.S., western Europe, Canada, and Australia, do award them (Comandè ; Sugarman ; Karapanou and Visscher and Leiter et al ).…”

Section: Previous Research and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Amaral-Garcia¹

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How do courts award noneconomic damages? Does it matter if the state is the defendant? This article addresses these questions in the context of medical malpractice appeals to the Spanish Supreme Court. Moreover, this study provides the first empirical analysis of the quantification of noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases in administrative courts, where the state is the defendant, and in civil courts. This separation of jurisdictions is a common feature in civil law tradition countries. Yet, critics of this separation in general, and specialized courts in particular, argue that parties might be subject to different treatments and that similar cases might reach different outcomes, namely in terms of the quantification of damages. A consistent result of this paper is that no significant differences between noneconomic damages in civil and administrative appeals were found. The separation of jurisdictions does not necessarily imply that courts reach different outcomes, even when the state is the defendant. Citizens should not refrain from bringing their claims forward against the state, a more powerful party. In the current era of increasing juridification and judicialization of modern life (Ginsburg 2009; Hirschl 2006; Hirschl 2011), it is crucial for society that citizens and other parties litigating with the state are not disadvantageously treated.

show abstract

Section: Previous Research and Theoretical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Amaral-Garcia¹

2019

Law Soc Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…What agencies, courts, and claimants ultimately care about is how much compensation should be awarded. Thus, by grading noneconomic losses only in nonmonetary terms, a health‐utility approach is patently incomplete (Karapanou & Visscher ; Karapanou ; Studdert et al ). A few alternative approaches to empirical assessment of noneconomic loss furnish dollar values (Studdert et al ).…”

Section: Implementation and Feasibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several others have made the connection (Miller ; Ubel & Loewenstein ; Noah ; Avraham ). Karapanou and Visscher have explored the idea in some depth (Karapanou & Visscher , ; Visscher & Karapanou ; Karapanou ). On the whole, this emerging body of scholarship is optimistic about potential to turn health‐utility measures to this use, but the technical feasibility has not been empirically demonstrated to date.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasibility of a Health‐Utility Approach to Quantifying Noneconomic Losses from Personal Injury

Carvalho¹,

Fish²,

Grant³

et al. 2018

J Empirical Legal Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is wide agreement that existing approaches to valuing noneconomic losses from personal injury lack coherence. "Health-utility" measurement---an approach developed in health economics for valuing health outcomes in public health and medicine---holds considerable promise for bringing greater rationality and consistency to assessments of injury-related noneconomic loss. However, the feasibility of creating utility measures that are suitable for use in personal injury compensation has not been demonstrated. This study takes that step. We surveyed more than 4,100 members of the general public in Australia to assess people's preferences for a variety of nonfatal "health states." The health states were selected to reflect harms commonly seen in claims to compensation schemes for transport and workplace accidents. We then followed established methods for transforming the survey responses into a "severity weight" for each health state. We show how these severity weights can be used to define tiers in a schedule for guiding noneconomic damages determinations. We also discuss the strengths and limitations of the approach, and consider implementation challenges.

show abstract

“…See also Ubel and Loewenstein (2008). For the use of QALY's, see Karapanou and Visscher (2010). For a calculation of the value of statistical life using verdicts on damages for pain and suffering from Austria and Germany, see Leiter et al (2012).…”

Section: "To Err Is Human"mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-Economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?

Amaral-Garcia

2015

SSRN Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Court are not more likely to receive damages than cases decided by the Civil Section. The probability of receiving compensation is significantly higher among cases involving permanent major/grave injuries. Terms of use: Documents inWith respect to non-economic compensation amounts, there are no significant differences between Administrative and Civil cases. This result is confirmed by matching estimation and simulation exercises. There is evidence of vertical inequality according to the level of harm: cases involving permanent grave injuries are those receiving the highest non-economic damages, followed by permanent major, death, permanent minor and temporary/emotional cases. Differences in compensation awards between Administrative and Civil courts has been one argument widely used against the current separation of jurisdictions in many civil law tradition countries. The results found in this paper do not support this claim.

show abstract

Towards a Better Assessment of Pain and Suffering Damages

Cited by 16 publications

References 2 publications

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Medical Malpractice Appeals in a Civil Law System: Do Administrative and Civil Courts Award Noneconomic Damages Differently?

Feasibility of a Health‐Utility Approach to Quantifying Noneconomic Losses from Personal Injury

Non-Economic Damages in Medical Malpractice Appeals: Does the Jurisdiction Make a Difference?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About