Abstract The massive United States healthcare system plays an important place in society. Enormous amounts of money spent on health care, fail to a large degree in terms of healthiness or life expectancy. Medical malpractice aggravates this situation due to inflating costs. This paper analyzes how the legal system in the United States is putting pressure on the healthcare system, looks at ways that healthcare delivery has gotten more expensive and potentially more harmful or wary of risk. Tort reform is examined with the potential to help reduce medical costs, but does not seem to be a sufficient long-term goal. Finally, the paper explores the idea of medical courts or tribunals, specialized medical decision makers that could help to increase fair and reasonable judgments for medical malpractice claims.
Paper Outline:
The United States' Legal System is Killing Healthcare
The Impact of the Legal System on Healthcare in the United States
Tort Reform
Medical Courts and Medical Administrative Tribunals
Benefits of Medical Courts and/or Tribunals
From the Paper "The United States legal system, at both the state and federal level, has never had the direct impact on an industry as it has on the U.S. health care industry. Currently, outside of very lax civil procedure rules, anyone can bring a medical malpractice claim and receive compensation without any factual findings made by a judge or jury. In other words, claimants may receive compensation from defendants without proving their allegations. Parties in medical liability lawsuits can hire so-called experts who routinely testify for the plaintiffs or defendants and skew their testimony towards the side who paid them to testify."
Abstract This paper provides an analysis of torts involved in an auto accident and medical malpractice case (Jason v. Angela). It looks at the issue of more than one defendant found liable to the plaintiff for committing a tort against him.
From the Paper "Jason has a cause of action against Angela who by speeding driving under the influence and running a red light undoubtedly violated local ordinances and is therefore liable under the law of the state where the accident ..."
Abstract The paper discusses the torts of nuisance and negligence in terms of the legal responsibilities of a landowner towards three types of individuals. The paper looks at three types of individuals; neighbors, invitees and trespassers. The paper covers the tort of nuisance as well as the tort of negligence. The paper examines the Duty of care of a landlord and the legal rights of the three parties.
From the Paper "This paper will examine legal issues arising from this fact situation that was assigned for this case study. There are three possible plaintiffs that emerge from the facts of this case. These situations are as follows: 1. John the neighbor who lives in a dwelling house next door to Ian who runs a business and uses a generator which is situated near John's property. 2. Ken the legitimate visitor to Ian's property who was injured while visiting Ian's property 3. Lionel who was trespassing on Ian's property without his knowledge or consent. Legal Issues Concerning the neighbor: John: Does John have a possible tort of Nuisance against Ian? The Law regarding the Tort of Nuisance: The court will look at the legal rights of the plaintiff and the defendant. A balancing test is usually adopted and the standard used is one of reasonableness."
Abstract This paper discusses the concept and definition of tort law. The paper discusses intentional, negligent, strict liability, and product liability in relation to tort law. The paper discusses the purpose of tort law and how judgements are made in regards to these types of laws within the judicial system.
From the Paper "Running Head: Tort Law Tort Case Comparison Criminology: Tort Case Comparison Introduction In tort law, proving cause and effect is the key ingredient to winning a case. The plaintiff is responsible for proving that the defendant caused the damage, the extent of damages incurred, and the degree of liability. Some legal experts argue that tort cases are the most challenging to prove in legal proceedings. Tort law was created in an effort to protect the security, property, reputation, and financial resources of a person(s). Tort law attempts to restore the injured party to the position in which they were in prior to the tort was committed ("Tort Law", 1996, n.p.)."
Abstract This paper provides a definition of tort law and then takes a look at a particular legal case which falls under the area of tort law. The paper describes the case and provides reasons why it should be approached under the area of tort law.
From the Paper "As tort law is the practice of law that addresses civil wrongs, wrongs in which a person's bodily security, property, material or economic resources, and well-being of personal reputation, it would seem that this is the area that should address the case being presented. In this case, the Plaintiff, Mr. Caudle, was taking part in festivities during a workplace party. Much tomfoolery and rambunctious behavior abounded, including the foolish tossing about of an electrical device which was known to give electrical shocks to those with whom it came in contact. When Mr. Betts, president of the workplace and Defendant, put said device in contact with Mr. Caudle, the Plaintiff received an injury which has caused many medical maladies, which not only required surgical treatment, but have not yet abated completely. This court will rule on the case based on tort law, looking at how it might fit..."
Abstract This is a nursing proposal suggesting what nurses can do to reduce risk while strongly advocating caps on malpractice awards. The current legislature on malpractice caps and the level of reduced care to patients is discussed. The patients' own inability to afford service, the affordability to practice by physicians and their need to increase patients' costs for services by ordering many more than medically necessary are all covered.
From the Paper "There is a vicious cycle taking place in the world of healthcare that involves patients, attorneys, physicians and healthcare professionals and facilities and insurance companies. Medical malpractice premium rates are forcing doctors and nurse practitioners to order medically unnecessary tests and pad bills or fold their practices. According to the Center for Legal Policy (as cited by Stableford, 2005) "unnecessary medical tests and constant referrals to specialists for second and third opinions costs an unnecessary $60 billion to $100 billion." Law suits continue to climb at an alarming rate with unconscionable awards that are not consistent with something that can be measured tangibly. Attorneys play on the sympathy of juries for neurological deformities of infants that could have naturally occurred genetically, not necessarily as a result of medical error, yet huge awards for punitive damages are awarded."
Abstract This paper examines if it is possible to find a solution to the problem of whether or not the veil of incorporation should be lifted as regards tort claims. It looks at how claims the only solution is to enact statutory tort law reform in England and provides an example of a leading case.
From the Paper "This research paper examines if it is possible to find a solution to the problem of whether or not the veil of incorporation should be lifted a regards tort claims. A solution can be found but only if statutory tort..."
Abstract In this article, the writer looks at the draft disposition of the Internet tort case. The writer discusses that the draft should be revised because it misstates the tort law involved. Further, the writer believes that the draft employs improper standard for reviewing summary judgment motions
From the Paper "This essay analyzes the correctness in terms of its conclusions and reasoning of the draft disposition by the state court trial judge of motions for summary judgment filed by plaintiffs and defendants in the subject case. The draft disposition should be substantially revised and many of its conclusions altered especially those relating to the granting of defendant Phishy Corp's motions, because it is based on faulty readings of the applicable state tort law and employs reasoning which would ... "
Tags: no, material, issue, of, fact, or, law, intentional, internet, torts, standards, of, conduct, in, internet, negligence, cases
Abstract This paper examines tort liability in six different cases involving XYZ Limited. Among other things, the paper explores the appropriateness of the initial XYZ response to various issues and it also explores the legal underpinnings upon which will be based future actions. Ultimately, it may be said that the paper explores the complexity of tort law as it exists in the United Kingdom.
From the Paper "Tort liability in English law is an extremely complicated matter. Because of this, the following paper will examine six cases involving tort law and attempt to determine the statues and or legal authorities that might guide a business decision in various situations where tort liability has been alleged. As will become apparent, organizations owe it to themselves to prepare as much as possible for possible suits as they are an inescapable part of doing business. In the first three cases to which we turn, both sides of the matter must be explored. From Bill's perspective, he was misled as to the vacation cottage he would occupy and he feels strongly that he should be recompensed for his inconvenience; in light of the inaccurate - possibly fraudulent - misrepresentation given to him by the now-insolvent travel company, his anger is perfectly understandable."
Abstract This paper discusses the differences between tort law and contract law, and how they impact on the individual and/or organization. According to this paper, taking legal action based on tort law and contract law, is not simple. One has to taken the issues involved into very careful consideration. This paper reviews the issues and the necessary steps to be taken.
From the Paper "Tort law and contract law specifically impact individuals or organizations that believe that they have encountered others who have negatively impacted them in an intentional manner. Yet, the determination of finding legal recourse through tort law or contract law requires specific attention to the actions that have occurred, as well as whether or not those actions may encompass both areas of law in relation to the individual. Contract law is, by definition, an agreement between two parties in which both are willing to enter into a binding mutual exchange where both entities benefit. The contract states what the parties are willing to exchange and generally provides all of the stipulations of that agreement in documented or verbal form (Rowley). The documentation or verbal agreement allows the parties to have proof of their intentions, and should those intentions not be met either party has a legal recourse through lawsuit as necessary."
Abstract This paper presents an argument against capping medical malpractice awards. The paper discusses several reasons why capping awards should not be adopted as public policy, contending that capping limits injured patients' access to justice.
From the Paper "Capping medical-malpractice awards should not be adopted as public policy. It would be grossly inappropriate for several reasons. The much-discussed crisis in medical care that doctors and insurers attribute to malpractice litigation is misdirected and can be traced to other causes. The idea that malpractice awards are out of control and are increasing all the time is simply wrong and cannot be sustained by the facts which suggests that attempts to cap award amounts for punitive damages are being made in bad
Abstract This paper is a brief review of a tort case in which a young child was injured as the result of an improperly fastened load. The paper suggests that the individual who advised the proprietor on the matter was more culpable than the actual owner of the rig - and that driver, by virtue of his actions, was also culpable for the child's injuries. The paper suggests, ultimately, that restitution for the emotional duress of some of the witnesses will be inevitable.
From the Paper "There can be little doubt that tort negligence is a significant and complex part of the legal canon. This paper will examine tort law as it relates to the particular case of Malcolm v. Neil. More specifically, this paper will examine the culpability of Malcolm (and of Neil) and attempt to determine the extent to which both parties are responsible to Peter and to Oliver and Rachel - and the extent to which Neil is responsible to Malcolm. In the final analysis, it appears that the laws governing tort negligence allow Neil very little defense for his actions. To begin with, there is t he matter of "fore-seeability". The modern conception of foreseeability dates back to 1932 when Lord Atkin, offering his opinion in the case of Donoghue v. Stevenson held that individuals "must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions.""
This paper argues that tort reform would have precisely zero effect on the health insurance costs of Americans and would have very serious harmful effects on the lives of Americans who find it necessary to seek relief through a malpractice lawsuit.
1,935 words (approx. 7.7 pages), 6 sources, MLA, $ 61.95
Abstract This paper explains that tort reform, putting a cap on jury awards in malpractice suits, is exactly what the insurers want because, in addition to making a handsome profit on their medical malpractice lines as it stands, they would then have to pay out even less. The author points out that reducing consumer health insurance costs would be better served by a systematic effort to weed out bad doctors and prevent malpractice. The paper stresses that, even if there were a link between medical malpractice insurance costs and consumer health insurance costs, the culprit is the insurer itself because it is not allowed, by law, to raise rates in response to big payouts; insurers are allowed to raise rates when their projected investment income declines.
From the Paper "The suggestive portion of the NAIC findings is this: although malpractice insurance premiums make up such a small portion of health-care costs, medical malpractice as a line of insurance demonstrated the highest profit as a percentage of premiums (Stewart, 21+), making it very lucrative for the insurance companies. Further, losses paid by those insurers in 1991 came to only about 31 cents of every $100 of health care costs; remember, malpractice premiums accounted for 64 cents per $100 spent, leaving 33 cents for the company out of each $100. While the amount spent on malpractice insurance by the consumer, trough his or her medical expenditures, is negligible, there are a lot of people spending $100 frequently, massing up piles of 33 cents for the insurers."
Abstract 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."
Abstract President Bush came into the White House with a history as a ?tort reformer.? True to his record, the President backed a ?tort reform? bill that was passed by the House of Representatives but floundered in a Democratic controlled Senate. The President has recently renewed his call for the legislature to approve a tort reform bill that relates mainly to medical malpractice. It remains to be seen whether President Bush is successful in getting his proposals approved this time around as debate still rages among the supporters and opponents of the reform bill. This paper looks at the pros and cons of the issue. The paper includes a summary of the proposed public policy on tort reform, an examination of the impact of the policy (who shall be affected?), as well as the lobbying efforts in favor of and against the tort reforms.
From the Paper "As for the lowering of health costs and insurance premiums, it is a contentious issue with both the opponents and supporters of the tort reforms holding widely divergent views. While the government contends that such reforms would reduce Federal government costs by at least $28 billion per year and cut health care costs for all Americans by $60 billion or more, the opponents argue that since medical malpractice premiums comprise only 0.59 % of national health care costs such tort reforms would have a very limited effect on health care costs. They also argue that "insurance reforms" rather than "tort reforms" are needed for lowering insurance premiums and quote the example of California where after implementation of medical malpractice reform, malpractice premiums increased 190 %. (?Tort Reform is not a Solution..?)"
