Another Mangled Prescription for Health Courts to Evaluate Medical Malpractice Claims
Restoring a foundation of trust requires a new system of medical justice. Medical cases are now decided jury by jury, without consistent application of medical standards. According to a 2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine, around 25 percent of cases where there was no identifiable error resulted in malpractice payments. Nor is the system effective for injured patients — according to the same study, 54 cents of every dollar paid in malpractice cases goes to administrative expenses like lawyers, experts and courts.
America needs special health courts aimed not at stopping lawsuits but at delivering fair and reliable decisions. A special court would provide expedited proceedings with knowledgeable staff that would work to settle claims quickly. Trials would be conducted before a judge who is advised by a neutral expert, with written rulings on standards of care.
With a special health court, damages would consist of all lost income and medical costs, plus “pain and suffering” based on a set schedule depending on the severity of the injury. All information about each incident, including details learned in settlements, would be compiled and disseminated so that doctors and hospitals could learn from their errors. Proponents of special health courts have estimated that the total cost of such a new liability system would be about the same as the existing system — less than 2 percent of America’s total health care costs. One benefit would be that the quicker, streamlined system would compensate far more people, with drastically lower legal costs. Most important, it would restore faith in the reliability of medical justice.
The author is none other than Philip Howard, whose latest screed, Life Without Lawyers, cautioned Americans against the devastating effect warning labels have had on our quality of life.
His column is loaded with unsupported references to standard boogeymen like defensive medicine, but let’s just focus on the special health courts. Though described in bombastic terms, Howard’s proposed system is different in only three respects:
- the jury is removed and medical malpractice becomes a bench trial before judges;
- independent experts are (apparently) removed and replaced by a single "neutral" expert chosen by an unspecific procedure; and,
- the judge is limited in the damages they can award to "lost income and medical costs, plus ‘pain and suffering’ based on a set schedule depending on the severity of the injury."
I do not see how the first and second part would "free doctors from worries about unnecessary and unreasonable malpractice claims." I have known many judges who have presided over many medical malpractice cases, but I have never heard a judge say they felt they personally had the expertise to evaluate whether the standard of care was breached or not any better than a jury. In fact, I have frequently heard the opposite.
Bearing that in mind, would such a system result in more "reliable" malpractice results than our current jury system?
Let’s go back to that "2006 study in the New England Journal of Medicine" Howard references, which was unveiled to the public through a press release from the researchers titled "Study Casts Doubt on Claims That the Medical Malpractice System Is Plagued By Frivolous Lawsuits." Here’s what they found:
The researchers analyzed past malpractice claims to judge the volume of meritless lawsuits and determine their outcomes. Their findings suggest that portraits of a malpractice system riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown. Although nearly one third of claims lacked clear-cut evidence of medical error, most of these suits did not receive compensation. In fact, the number of meritorious claims that did not get paid was actually larger than the group of meritless claims that were paid. The findings appear in the May 11, 2006 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine.
“Some critics have suggested that the malpractice system is inundated with groundless lawsuits, and that whether a plaintiff recovers money is like a random ‘lottery,’ virtually unrelated to whether the claim has merit,” said lead author David Studdert, associate professor of law and public health at HSPH. “These findings cast doubt on that view by showing that most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury, and that claims with merit are far more likely to be paid than claims without merit.”
Most claims (72%) that did not involve error did not receive compensation. When they did, the payments were lower, on average, than payments for claims that did involve error ($313,205 vs. $521,560). Among claims that involved error, 73% received compensation. “Overall, the malpractice system appears to be getting it right about three quarters of the time,” said Studdert. “That’s far from a perfect record, but it’s not bad, especially considering that questions of error and negligence can be complex.” The 27% of cases with outcomes that didn’t match their merit included claims that went unpaid even though the injury was caused by an error (16%); claims that were paid but did not involve error (10%); and claims that were paid but did not appear to involve a treatment-related injury (0.4%).
So our current system gets it right "three quarters of the time," and, when it gets it wrong, favors the doctors — would Howard’s system beat that?
Probably not; such a system is unlikely to make results any more "reliable" than now, unless you presume that judges are systematically biased in favor of one side or the other. The judges in Howard’s proposal — none of whom have particular expertise in medicine — will be wholly dependent upon the "neutral expert" for their understanding of the medicine. Worse, unlike the jury in a medical malpractice action today, they will not have the benefit of seeing a cross examination or in considering the views of multiple experts.
Ironically, Howard’s process for chosing a "neutral" expert and the materials they opine on will probably make medical malpractice litigation more contentious, expensive, and uncertain because it will at best resemble the Markman process used in evaluating patent disputes. Markman hearings often involve the selection of a "neutral expert" in helping the judge determine the meaning of a patent, a process loathed by patent attorneys for adding "a whole new level of lawyering, cost, delay and, some say, uncertainty to patent litigation." So there goes parts 1 and 2.
That leaves Howard with a single proposal: limiting damages, for which he proposes a system like workers’ compensation, which covers economic losses and provides a pre-set amount for particular damages. [We'll put aside for this post the fact that, as a practical matter, medical malpractice cases are already typically limited by the size of the defendant's insurance policy; very rarely do plaintiffs ever collect or even attempt to collect amounts over that.]
The problem here is that workers’ compensation is, and always has been, construed as a bargain: in exchange for reliable compensation, the workers give up their right to a jury trial on damages. But Howard doesn’t propose any quid to go along with his quo — patients are just supposed to give up their rights to damages without receiving any increased certainty in their compensation if they are injured.
If Howard really wanted to create "fair and reliable" results, he’d propose something along the lines of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, which, inter alia, provides compensation for the plaintiff’s attorneys even if a meritorious suit does not prevail, thereby ensuring no one is left behind by the process.
But that’s not what Howard really wants.