谁是医疗服务提供者?法定解释作为医疗事故损害赔偿上限的中间方法。

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2024-04-02 DOI:10.1017/amj.2024.5
Isaac Margolis
{"title":"谁是医疗服务提供者?法定解释作为医疗事故损害赔偿上限的中间方法。","authors":"Isaac Margolis","doi":"10.1017/amj.2024.5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Debates over the effectiveness, constitutionality, and fairness of medical malpractice damage caps are as old as the laws themselves. Though some courts have struck down damage caps under state constitutional provisions, the vast majority hesitate to invalidate malpractice reform legislation. Instead, statutory interpretation offers a non-constitutional method of challenging the broad scope of damage caps without fully invalidating legislative efforts to curtail \"excessive\" malpractice liability. This Note examines the term \"health care providers\" in construing malpractice reform laws and identifies two predominant forms of statutory interpretation that state courts apply. In doing so, this Note offers recommendations for courts and legislatures to best balance the goals of the malpractice reform movement with patients' interests in recovery for medical injuries.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Who Is a Health Care Provider?: Statutory Interpretation as a Middle-Ground Approach to Medical Malpractice Damage Caps.\",\"authors\":\"Isaac Margolis\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/amj.2024.5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Debates over the effectiveness, constitutionality, and fairness of medical malpractice damage caps are as old as the laws themselves. Though some courts have struck down damage caps under state constitutional provisions, the vast majority hesitate to invalidate malpractice reform legislation. Instead, statutory interpretation offers a non-constitutional method of challenging the broad scope of damage caps without fully invalidating legislative efforts to curtail \\\"excessive\\\" malpractice liability. This Note examines the term \\\"health care providers\\\" in construing malpractice reform laws and identifies two predominant forms of statutory interpretation that state courts apply. In doing so, this Note offers recommendations for courts and legislatures to best balance the goals of the malpractice reform movement with patients' interests in recovery for medical injuries.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7680,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Law & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2024.5\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/4/2 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2024.5","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/4/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于医疗事故损害赔偿上限的有效性、合宪性和公平性的争论与法律本身一样古老。虽然有些法院根据州宪法规定取消了损害赔偿上限,但绝大多数法院在判定渎职改革立法无效方面犹豫不决。相反,法律解释提供了一种非宪法性的方法,既可以对损害赔偿上限的广泛范围提出质疑,又不会使旨在限制 "过度 "渎职责任的立法努力完全失效。本说明探讨了 "医疗服务提供者 "一词在解释渎职改革法中的含义,并确定了州法院适用的两种主要的法律解释形式。在此过程中,本说明为法院和立法机构提供了建议,以便在渎职改革运动的目标与患者的医疗损害赔偿利益之间取得最佳平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Who Is a Health Care Provider?: Statutory Interpretation as a Middle-Ground Approach to Medical Malpractice Damage Caps.

Debates over the effectiveness, constitutionality, and fairness of medical malpractice damage caps are as old as the laws themselves. Though some courts have struck down damage caps under state constitutional provisions, the vast majority hesitate to invalidate malpractice reform legislation. Instead, statutory interpretation offers a non-constitutional method of challenging the broad scope of damage caps without fully invalidating legislative efforts to curtail "excessive" malpractice liability. This Note examines the term "health care providers" in construing malpractice reform laws and identifies two predominant forms of statutory interpretation that state courts apply. In doing so, this Note offers recommendations for courts and legislatures to best balance the goals of the malpractice reform movement with patients' interests in recovery for medical injuries.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
Monitoring Mental Health: Legal and Ethical Considerations of Using Artificial Intelligence in Psychiatric Wards - ADDENDUM. A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1