Paper Summary:

This paper discusses the issue of the economic effectiveness of tort law in the common law legal system of England and Wales, as applied to medical and clinical negligence and malpractice cases. It looks at how in response to economic concerns and a continual rise in cases, an examination of the consideration of a proposed no-fault alternative to the current system is underway. It explores the basis of the current system, the impetus for change and the characteristics of no-fault reform as experienced by other countries and its pros and cons. The principal aim of tort reform is to limit the legal or financial exposure of the NHS (National Health System) to liability for damages and to streamline the process of compensation for plaintiffs.

Outline
The United Kingdom
Introduction
Statistics Regarding Claims
The National Health System
Obstacles to Due Process
The Case for Reform
The Regulatory Environment
The Rising Cost of Litigation
Lord Woolf's Reforms
More Cost Controls
The United States
Introduction
The St. Paul's Pullout
The Insurance Industry
Tort Reform In America
Fleeing Physicians
Statistics for Error, Injury and Death
The Call for Reform in 2003: A Familiar Refrain
The United States Situation, in Summary
New Zealand Case Studies
The Swedish Scheme
A Comparison: Which System is Better?
First: Underlying Differences
Talking Tort: American Peculiarities
Americans Consider No-Fault
Britain Considers No-Fault
Conclusion
Works Cited
Appendix A

From the Paper:

"When St. Paul's, the largest writer of medical malpractice policies, ceased to offer the coverage in 2001-2002, it was the a consequence of the attention that had been focused on the administration of this type of coverage. A 1989 investigation of St. Paul's and one other insurer initiated by Michael Hatch, then Commerce Commissioner of Minnesota, revealed that over a six-year period premiums had increased 300 percent while claims had not. Hatch was quoted as saying the reason for the increase was: "Because they had the opportunity to do it. There was a limited market. People need coverage. The companies knew they had a corner on it, and they raised their rates accordingly." In response, a group of surgeons from Charleston jointly sued St. Paul for "grossly poor management". St. Paul's consequently dropped that type of coverage as part of its portfolio."

Visitors who viewed this Research Paper also liked these:

• Research Paper # 99642 : "Divorce and Families"
• Analytical Essay # 62642 : "Love"
• Term Paper # 93077 : "Not Scared to Die"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: