---

Washington Examiner Discusses Need for Health Courts

Editorial
Washington Examiner, September 9, 2005

An editorial in the Washington Examiner endorses the bipartisan proposal to establish special health courts as a way of bringing back fairness and reliability to the medical justice system. The article explains the confusion that can arise when juries with no medical background are asked to make decisions based on complex scientific evidence:

"After the [recent Vioxx] trial, a juror named Joel Ostrom told the Wall Street Journal, 'Whenever Merck was up there [testifying], it was like wah, wah, wah' (mimicking a sound from "Peanuts" television cartoon). 'We didn't know what the heck they were talking about.'"

Judges are supposed to act as "gatekeepers" who can "ensure that juries hear valid scientific evidence from qualified experts." However, according to Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, "most judges lack the scientific training that might facilitate the evaluation of scientific claims or the evaluation of expert witnesses." This statement is supported by the 2002 Harvard Medical Practice Study, which found that "as many as 80 percent of verdicts against medical malpractice defendants are unjustified by scientific evidence."

Special health courts would eliminate these issues: "Judges on these courts would have special training in science and would handle nothing but medical lawsuits. Qualified, neutral experts in a variety of specialties would replace the hired guns brought in by plaintiffs and defendants."

This editorial is no longer available on-line.

---

Printed from http://www.cgood.org/