Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research®
Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2009

01-02-2009 | Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths

Author: Neil Vidmar, JD

Published in: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® | Issue 2/2009

Login to get access

Abstract

Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled for much less than the verdicts.
Literature
1.
2.
3.
Baker T. Blood money, new money and the moral code of the personal injury bar. Law & Soc’y Rev. 2002;35:257–319.
4.
Baker T. The Medical Malpractice Myth. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 2005:22–44, 45–67.
5.
6.
Bovbjerg R, Sloan F, Blumstein J. Valuing life and limb in tort: scheduling “pain and suffering.” NW UL Rev. 1989;83:908–976.
7.
8.
9.
Daniels S, Martin J. Civil Juries and the Politics of Reform. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press, 1995:92–151.
10.
Diamond S, Vidmar N. Jury room ruminations on forbidden evidence. Virginia Law Rev. 2001;87:1857–1915.CrossRef
11.
Diamond S, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. Juror discussions during trial: studying an Arizona innovation. Arizona Law Rev. 2003;45:1–82.
12.
Engel D. The oven bird’s song: insiders, outsiders, and personal injuries in an American community. Law & Soc’y Rev. 1984;18:551–582.CrossRef
13.
Farber H, White M. A comparison of formal and informal dispute resolution in medical malpractice. J Legal Stud. 1991;23:777–806.CrossRef
14.
Hans V, Lofquist W. Perceptions of civil justice: the litigation crisis attitudes of civil jurors. Behav Sci Law. 1994;12:181–196.CrossRef
15.
Hans V. Business on Trial: The Civil Jury and Corporate Liability. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001:50–179.
16.
17.
Heuer L, Penrod S. Trial complexity: a field investigation of its meaning and effects. Law & Hum Behav. 1994;18:29–52.CrossRef
18.
Hyman D, Black B, Zeiler K, Silver C, Sage W. Do defendants pay what juries award? Post verdict haircuts in Texas medical malpractice cases:1988–2003. J Empirical Legal Stud. 2007;4:3–68.CrossRef
19.
Johnson K, Phillips C, Orentlichter D. A fault-based administrative system for resolving medical malpractice claims. Vand L Rev. 1989;42:1365–1406.
20.
Kalven H, Zeisel H. The American Jury. Chicago, IL : University of Chicago Press, 1966;56–65.
21.
Kutnjak-Ivokovic S, Hans V. Jurors Evaluation of Expert Testimony, Judging The Messenger and the Message. Law & Soc Inquiry. 2003;28:441–482.CrossRef
22.
Mello M, Hemenway D. Medical malpractice as an epidemiological problem. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:39–46.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Peeples R, Harris C, Metzloff T. Settlement has many faces: physicians, attorneys, and medical malpractice. J Health Soc Behav. 2000;41:333–246.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Rosenblatt R, Hurst A. An analysis of closed obstetric malpractice claims. Obstet Gynecol. 1989;74:710–713.PubMed
25.
Saks M. Medical malpractice: facing real problems and finding real solutions. William & Mary Law Rev. 1994;35:693–720.
26.
Schuman D, Whittaker E, Champagne A. An empirical examination of the use of expert witnesses in the courts—part two: a three city study. Jurimetrics J. 1994;34:193–206.
27.
Sloan F, Chepke L. Medical Malpractice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 2008;58–62:166–170.
28.
Sloan F, van Wert S. Cost of injuries. In: Sloan F. Suing for Medical Malpractice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993:123–152.
29.
Studdert DM, Mello MM, Gawande AA, Gandhi TK, Kachalia A, Yoon C, Puopolo AL, Brennan TA. Claims, errors and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation. N Engl J Med. 2006;354:2024–2033.PubMedCrossRef
30.
31.
Taragin M, Willett L, Wilczek A, Trout R, Carson J. The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117:780–784.PubMed
32.
33.
Vidmar N. Empirical evidence on the “deep pockets” hypothesis: jury awards for pain and suffering in medical malpractice cases. Duke LJ. 1993;43:217–266.CrossRef
34.
Vidmar N. Medical Malpractice and the American Jury. Ann Arbor, MI: U. Michigan Press. 1995;69–94; 221–236–248.
35.
Vidmar N. Listening to jurors and asking them questions. Trial Briefs. 2002;August:9–13.
36.
Vidmar N. Medical malpractice lawsuits: an essay on patient interests, the contingency fee system, juries and social policy. Loy LA L Rev. 2005;38:1217–1266.
37.
Vidmar N, Diamond S. Juries and expert evidence. Brook L Rev. 2001;66:1121–1180.
38.
Vidmar N, Hans V. American Juries: The Verdict. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books; 2007;147–190, 281–302.
39.
Vidmar N, Lee J, Cohen E, Stewart A. Damage awards and jurors’ responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases. Behav Sci Law. 1994;12:149–160.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Vidmar N, Lee P, MacKillop K, McCarthy K, McGwin G. Jury awards for medical malpractice and post-verdict adjustments of those awards. DePaul Law Rev. 2005;54:315–356.
41.
Vidmar N, MacKillop K. “Judicial hellholes,” medical malpractice claims, verdicts and the “doctor exodus” in Illinois. Vand L Rev. 2006;59:1309–1342.
42.
Vidmar N, MacKillop K, Lee P. Million dollar medical malpractice cases in Florida: post-verdict and pre-suit settlements. Vand L Rev. 2006;59:1343–1381.
43.
Vidmar N, Rice J. Assessments of non-economic damage awards in medical negligence: a comparison of jurors with legal professionals. Iowa L Rev. 1993;78:883–912.
Metadata
Title
Juries and Medical Malpractice Claims: Empirical Facts versus Myths
Author
Neil Vidmar, JD
Publication date
01-02-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® / Issue 2/2009
Print ISSN: 0009-921X
Electronic ISSN: 1528-1132
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11999-008-0608-6

Other articles of this Issue 2/2009

Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® 2/2009 Go to the issue

Original Article

The Influence of Maggot Excretions on PAO1 Biofilm Formation on Different Biomaterials

Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

The Classic: Report of the Committee on Suits for Malpractice

Original Article

A Superficial Swab Culture is Useful for Microbiologic Diagnosis in Acute Prosthetic Joint Infections

50 Years Ago in CORR

50 Years Ago in CORR: The Expert Medical Witness Patrick C. Doran MD CORR 1956;8:254–258

Symposium: Clinical Risk and Judicial Reasoning

Twenty Years of Evidence on the Outcomes of Malpractice Claims

Original Article

Which Approach for Total Hip Arthroplasty: Anterolateral or Posterior?