Health Courts: Who Do They Benefit?
A hot-button issues associated with tort reform is the concept of health courts to decide medical malpractice claims, which some fear may replace medical malpractice jury trials.
April 01, 2010 /24-7PressRelease/ -- Health Courts: Who Do They Benefit?
One of the hot-button issues associated with the national health care overhaul is tort reform, specifically the concept of health courts to decide medical malpractice claims. The Senate health care bill, the cornerstone of the health reform effort, contains a sense of the Senate declaration endorsing state experimentation with alternative dispute resolution mechanisms for medical malpractice. If the budget reconciliation process produces health care amendments as expected, Republicans favoring tort reform are likely to press for the creation of mandatory health courts to replace medical malpractice jury trials.
Supporters of health courts believe they would crimp health care costs by eliminating excessive jury awards based on sympathy; they would also standardize the outcomes of medical malpractice cases, minimizing the likelihood of disparate compensation to patients suffering similar injuries. Opponents contend that such courts would shift the costs and burdens of medical malpractice from doctors and their insurers to injured patients; more patient claims would be denied and compensation would be lower for those who did prevail in asserting medical malpractice claims.
Expert Medical Panels v. Juries
While health care courts could take a variety of forms, a common model discussed by proponents would standardize the claims process. One notable feature would be the installation of expert medical panels to serve the function normally relegated to juries. With doctors and potential insurance industry representatives deciding malpractice claims, any bias is likely to favor defendant doctors rather than injured patients.
Standardized Schedules for Loss of Body Parts, Function
Standardization, if it takes the form of workers' compensation claim panels, would result in schedules to determine award amounts for particular injuries - ignoring the wide range of differences among people suffering similar injuries and the degree of negligence underlying the malpractice.
Punitive Damages by the Wayside
Punitive damages, designed to deter egregious violations of the standard of care doctors owe to patients, would likely be eliminated or severely curtailed if health courts take root. Tort reform activists behind the health court movement strongly oppose punitive damages as unpredictable and excessive for doctors and insurers, their main constituency, and an undeserved bonanza for patients.
Non-Economic Damage Caps
One of the areas routinely targeted for attack by tort reform advocates is non-economic damages. While payment for the cost of corrective surgery or physical rehabilitation is straightforward and easy to quantify, non-economic damages are less defined. Loss of companionship, for example, has no generally agreed-upon monetary value. Likewise, other non-economic damages such as loss of sexual function, stress or lifelong pain are recognized as real harm, but are not readily measured monetarily. Courts allow juries to set damage awards for such losses under the present system. Health care courts would be expected to standardize and cap any medical malpractice payments for non-economic damages.
While doctors and malpractice insurers tout the benefits of state-run health care courts, the reality of what such courts do may be far different than the promise of quick, consistent resolutions of malpractice claims.
Speak with an Attorney
To learn more about Health Courts and how they may impact the outcome of your injury claim, please speak to an experienced medical malpractice attorney in your area.
Press Release Contact Information:
Findlaw PR
