Placing 'Standard of Care' in Context: The Impact of Witness Potential and Attorney Reputation in Medical Malpractice Litigation
39 Pages Posted: 8 Nov 2002
Date Written: September 2002
Abstract
Previous empirical studies have speculated about the possible role that factors other than negligence play in the resolution of medical malpractice claims. The present study identifies and evaluates the impact of three "strategic variables" in the medical malpractice litigation process: the witness potential of the defendant physician, the witness potential of the plaintiff and the reputation of the plaintiff's attorney. Do factors other than standard of care make a difference in the outcome of medical malpractice cases?
Data were collected from insurance company files on cases filed in North Carolina state courts between 1991 and 1995. Analyses revealed that when the insurers' outside reviewers rated liability as probable, based on standard of care, settlement occurred in most of the cases. However, when liability was rated as uncertain or unlikely, strategic variables were significant predictors of case outcome. Cases in which the defendant physician had a strategic advantage were much less likely to settle, while cases in which the plaintiff had a strategic advantage were much more likely to settle.
Keywords: Medical malpractice, standard of care, dispute resolution, settlement, strategic advantage
JEL Classification: K41
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
The Selection Hypothesis and the Relationship between Trial and Plaintiff Victory
-
Medical Malpractice: an Empirical Examination of the Litigation Process
By Henry S. Farber and Michelle J. White
-
The Litigious Plaintiff Hypothesis: Case Selection and Resolution