Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-13T20:14:51.937Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial Review of Malpractice Reform Legislation: The Story so Far

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Jay Alexander Gold
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The malpractice Insurance crisis of 1975 saw many insurance companies which had provided medical malpractice coverage leave the field. Those that stayed increased their premium rates astronomically. One of the results has been a flood of legislation, a torrent unparalleled , , , in the history of medical law In this country. We may expect soon to be deluged again, this time with court decisions reviewing and interpreting the constitutionality of these laws. This brief article reviews the first trickle of such cases.

The bulk of the issues litigated to date have centered around the use of screening panels. A number of states have set up such panels. in all of the cases so far litigated. the panels contained a judge who usually sat with a physician and a lawyer. Before a lawsuit is filed, the plaintiff is required to bring the case before Me panel, which makes a determination of liability and damages. Either party may there after bring the case to trial.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , Winter 1977 , pp. 5 - 6
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Curran, Malpractice Crisis. The Flood of Legislation, 289 N. Eng. J. Med. 1182 (1975).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
N.Y. Judiciary Law, Sec. 148-a, subdiv. 8.Google Scholar
381 N.Y.S.2d 744 (1976).Google Scholar
“Court Says Malpractice Panels Can Submit Evidence,” N.Y. Times, p. 30, col. 4 (Dec. 21, 1976).Google Scholar
335 So. 2d 802 (1976).Google Scholar
Fla. Statues, Sec. 768. 133 (ch. 75-9, Sec. 5, Laws of Florida).Google Scholar
Curran, How Lawyers Handle Malpractice Cases 41 (1976).Google Scholar
III. Rev. Stat. 1976, ch. 110, par. 58.7.Google Scholar
63III. 2d 313, 317 N.E.2d 736 (1976).Google Scholar
III. Rev. Stat. 1975, ch. 73, par. 1013a.Google Scholar
Id., ch. 70, par. 101.Google Scholar
For an elaboration of the points made in this paragraph, See Benjamin D. Diamond, “The Constitutionally of Limiting Medical Malpractice Awards,” (unpublished paper, 1976) (on file at American Society of Law & Medicine Library).Google Scholar
Curran, supra Note 7.Google Scholar
45 L.W. 2226 (1976).Google Scholar
226 S.E.2d 498 (1976).Google Scholar
N.C. Gen. Stat. Ch. 58, Art. 18C.Google Scholar