June 16, 2003
"Typical" malpractice case shows why reform is not needed
The SP Times has several articles about malpractice in today’s edition. This one relates a “typical” case that results in a verdict for the doctors.
The outcome of the case is not that unusual locally.
Maye, 44, has presided over three other malpractice trials during her two years on the civil court. Plaintiffs lost all three. Roland Lamb, the hospital's co-counsel, says he has lost fewer than 10 of the more than 100 malpractice suits that he has argued and that have gone all the way to a verdict. Mendoza's insurer, ProAssurance, has won defense verdicts in 29 of 36 malpractice suits so far this year in Florida.
An obvious question: if this is a typical result, why do we need tort reform? Huge jury awards are the exception, not the rule, and are invariably whittled down or overturned on appeal.
Posted by Norwood at June 16, 2003 08:32 AMGreat site, thank you for sharing it.
Posted by: reality porn reviews at July 28, 2004 06:25 AM