Torts

MedMalMyths
The Times' editors address the faux crisis of malpractice recovery.

We hold no brief for the current medical liability system, which does a poor job of compensating most victims of medical malpractice. An authoritative study of thousands of patients in New York State found that the vast majority who were harmed by medical errors or negligence never filed suit, whereas the vast majority of those who did file suit were not actually harmed by negligent doctors. Some studies suggest that, once a suit is filed, the courts do a reasonably good job of sorting out who deserves compensation, while other research has found that juries are swayed more by the severity of a plaintiff's injuries than by evidence of negligence. But in a medical system that is coming under increased fire for failing to deliver consistent quality in hospital care, it is clear that only a small number of people are being compensated for malpractice.

The supposed solution of capping rewards in malpractice suits assumes the egregious and common mantle of oversimplicity, and, largely, inaccuracy (the mistaken belief that high rewards are the cause of high insurance rates.)
As the Times argues, the problem is far more complex. We have deserving, injured people going without compensation. We have insurance companies abusing public perception. We have cases going to court that should not.
I have always thought that the way to cut out undeserving malpractice suits is to better filter the incoming cases- and the Times makes this point. We already have penalties for frivolous lawsuits. These are in the Rules of Civil Procedure and lawyer ethics codes. If we want more, lets set up a structure--grand jury style--to measure the merits before trial. Seems like a clear solution. Unfortunately, it is not a solution that the insurance and medical industry lobbies want to accept.