After analyzing three decades of research, a law professor at the University of Missouri at Columbia has concluded that juries in medical malpractice cases tend to sympathize with the doctors being sued rather than the patients suing them. For years, President Bush’s administration has pushed to reform the current tort system, citing an epidemic of frivolous malpractice cases and jury verdicts that force doctors out of practice due to huge monetary awards to the patients that contribute to astronomical malpractice insurance premiums.
The study reveals that juries treat physicians favorably, perhaps unfairly so. The author of the study, Philip Peters, found that doctors win about half of the cases that independent experts who review them believe should result in a victory for the plaintiff (the patient). Injured patients only win about 27% of all cases that go to trial; this is the lowest percentage of any category of tort litigation.
Some possible reasons noted for the number of rulings in favor of the physicians are the defendants’ superior social standing and economic resources and the jurors’ inclination to give the physician the benefit of the doubt when the evidence is complicated and difficult to understand.
One proposed solution is to have malpractice cases heard in specialized health courts, where malpractice plaintiffs fare better in front of judges than in front of juries. Currently, there is legislation pending in Congress to transfer medical negligence to administrative health courts.
If you or a loved one has suffered or died due to medical malpractice or negligence in Pennsylvania, please visit the website of experienced Medical Malpractice Attorneys Pomerantz Perlberg & Lewis LLP.
