侵权法改革建议:变革的工具箱。

Health care law newsletter Pub Date : 1994-09-01
R Leventhal
{"title":"侵权法改革建议:变革的工具箱。","authors":"R Leventhal","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Tort reform is controversial because of the need to balance cost considerations with the legitimate needs of plaintiffs who have suffered malpractice injury. In addition, proponents and opponents of the different proposals often formulate their positions based largely on anecdotal evidence and concerns of special interest groups rather than careful studies. As a result, it may be some time before malpractice reform is addressed comprehensively at the federal level, leaving the states to their own reform devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":79604,"journal":{"name":"Health care law newsletter","volume":"9 9","pages":"3-8"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1994-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tort reform proposals: a toolbox for change.\",\"authors\":\"R Leventhal\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Tort reform is controversial because of the need to balance cost considerations with the legitimate needs of plaintiffs who have suffered malpractice injury. In addition, proponents and opponents of the different proposals often formulate their positions based largely on anecdotal evidence and concerns of special interest groups rather than careful studies. As a result, it may be some time before malpractice reform is addressed comprehensively at the federal level, leaving the states to their own reform devices.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health care law newsletter\",\"volume\":\"9 9\",\"pages\":\"3-8\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1994-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health care law newsletter\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health care law newsletter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

侵权改革是有争议的,因为需要平衡成本考虑与原告的合法需要谁遭受了玩忽职守的伤害。此外,不同提案的支持者和反对者往往在很大程度上根据轶事证据和特殊利益集团的关注来阐述他们的立场,而不是仔细研究。因此,在联邦层面全面解决医疗事故改革问题可能还需要一段时间,让各州自行实施改革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Tort reform proposals: a toolbox for change.

Tort reform is controversial because of the need to balance cost considerations with the legitimate needs of plaintiffs who have suffered malpractice injury. In addition, proponents and opponents of the different proposals often formulate their positions based largely on anecdotal evidence and concerns of special interest groups rather than careful studies. As a result, it may be some time before malpractice reform is addressed comprehensively at the federal level, leaving the states to their own reform devices.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
State legislative approaches to regulating the use of genetic information. State Medicaid reform under Section 1115 demonstration authority. Arnett v. Dal Cielo: peer review confidentiality threatened by medical board investigational subpoenas. Commissioner v. Schleier: back to the drawing board on the taxation of employment dispute recoveries. Managed care liability and the capitated provider.
×
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