医疗事故案件处理过程:护理标准的作用

R. Peeples, C. Harris, Thomas B. Metzloff
{"title":"医疗事故案件处理过程:护理标准的作用","authors":"R. Peeples, C. Harris, Thomas B. Metzloff","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.347760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In medical malpractice litigation, how the standard of care is determined is of obvious importance, since failure by a defendant-physician to meet the relevant standard of care constitutes negligence. Any effort to reform how standard-of-care determinations are made should start with an understanding of the entire claims resolution process. The usual image - that of opposing experts testifying at trial - is both incomplete and misleading. Most cases are either settled by the parties or abandoned by the plaintiff, short of trial. We reviewed insurers' closed claims files, representing a sample of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in North Carolina between 1991 and 1995, as well as the matching court files. As a result, we obtained unique and highly detailed information about these cases. In this Article we report on our findings, as they relate to the insurer's assessment of the standard of care. We conclude that a shift in standard-of-care determinations to a more empirical, scientifically-based inquiry would not be likely to change the dynamics of the settlement process, where the emphasis is on bargaining and negotiation, rather than on reaching conclusions about the standard of care.","PeriodicalId":83479,"journal":{"name":"Wake Forest law review","volume":"37 1","pages":"877"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2002-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"13","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Process of Managing Medical Malpractice Cases: The Role of Standard of Care\",\"authors\":\"R. Peeples, C. Harris, Thomas B. Metzloff\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.347760\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In medical malpractice litigation, how the standard of care is determined is of obvious importance, since failure by a defendant-physician to meet the relevant standard of care constitutes negligence. Any effort to reform how standard-of-care determinations are made should start with an understanding of the entire claims resolution process. The usual image - that of opposing experts testifying at trial - is both incomplete and misleading. Most cases are either settled by the parties or abandoned by the plaintiff, short of trial. We reviewed insurers' closed claims files, representing a sample of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in North Carolina between 1991 and 1995, as well as the matching court files. As a result, we obtained unique and highly detailed information about these cases. In this Article we report on our findings, as they relate to the insurer's assessment of the standard of care. We conclude that a shift in standard-of-care determinations to a more empirical, scientifically-based inquiry would not be likely to change the dynamics of the settlement process, where the emphasis is on bargaining and negotiation, rather than on reaching conclusions about the standard of care.\",\"PeriodicalId\":83479,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Wake Forest law review\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"877\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2002-11-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"13\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Wake Forest law review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.347760\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wake Forest law review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.347760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 13

摘要

在医疗事故诉讼中,如何确定护理标准显然很重要,因为被告医生未能达到相关的护理标准构成过失。任何改革医疗标准决定方式的努力都应该从理解整个索赔解决过程开始。通常的印象——对方专家在审判中作证——既不完整又具有误导性。大多数案件要么由当事人解决,要么由原告放弃,没有经过审判。我们审查了保险公司已结案的索赔档案,这些档案代表了1991年至1995年期间在北卡罗来纳州提起的医疗事故诉讼的样本,以及相应的法庭档案。因此,我们获得了关于这些病例的独特和非常详细的信息。在这篇文章中,我们报告了我们的发现,因为它们与保险公司对护理标准的评估有关。我们得出的结论是,将护理标准的确定转变为更经验的、基于科学的调查,不太可能改变解决过程的动态,因为解决过程的重点是讨价还价和谈判,而不是得出关于护理标准的结论。
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
The Process of Managing Medical Malpractice Cases: The Role of Standard of Care
In medical malpractice litigation, how the standard of care is determined is of obvious importance, since failure by a defendant-physician to meet the relevant standard of care constitutes negligence. Any effort to reform how standard-of-care determinations are made should start with an understanding of the entire claims resolution process. The usual image - that of opposing experts testifying at trial - is both incomplete and misleading. Most cases are either settled by the parties or abandoned by the plaintiff, short of trial. We reviewed insurers' closed claims files, representing a sample of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in North Carolina between 1991 and 1995, as well as the matching court files. As a result, we obtained unique and highly detailed information about these cases. In this Article we report on our findings, as they relate to the insurer's assessment of the standard of care. We conclude that a shift in standard-of-care determinations to a more empirical, scientifically-based inquiry would not be likely to change the dynamics of the settlement process, where the emphasis is on bargaining and negotiation, rather than on reaching conclusions about the standard of care.
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
Typology of parent-child ties within families: Associations with psychological well-being. Property's Problem with Extremes Response to Reasonable Expectations in Sociocultural Context The High Cost of The Nation's Current Framework for Education Federalism Contract in Context
×
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