The Changing Face of Medical Liability Therese Droste
State Health Notes, March 7, 2005 "Could caps on damages become passe?" That's the question posed by State Health Notes (SHN), a biweekly publication that delivers health information to state legislators and legislative staff, in a March 7 cover story featuring Common Good's proposal to create special health courts.
"Some health-care experts are urging states to think outside the typical package of malpractice reforms (e.g., capping damages, restricting venues and limiting lawyers' fees)," the article notes. Common Good wants "nothing less than a new system of medical justice."
"Medical justice is no longer reliable and has infected health care with a debilitating distrust," said Philip K. Howard, chair of Common Good. "What we need now is a new system of medical justice that will restore confidence in the law."
Health courts would be presided over by expert judges, who would "deliver binding rulings on standards of care." As SHN reports:
The courts would award damages in addition to a patient's medical costs and lost income, according to a pre-determined schedule established by experts. ... Expert witnesses would be chosen and compensated by the court, to avoid the 'dueling experts' who confuse juries in cases today. ... Rulings could be appealed to a new medical appellate court.
The Progressive Policy Institute, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and numerous other leaders in healthcare and law have endorsed Common Good's proposal.
Health courts are needed to restore reliability to medical justice. Most patients harmed by medical errors get nothing, but doctors who did nothing wrong, especially in circumstances of huge tragedy, are often hit with huge verdicts. The consequence is a pervasive distrust that leads to costly defensive medicine and to a culture of secrecy that impedes efforts to improve patient safety.
Learn more about special health courts.
The SHN article is no longer available on-line.
| 
