Screening Plaintiffs and Selecting Defendants in Medical Malpractice Litigation: Evidence from Illinois and Indiana

Mohammad H. Rahmati, D. Hyman, Bernard Black, Jing Liu, C. Silver
{"title":"Screening Plaintiffs and Selecting Defendants in Medical Malpractice Litigation: Evidence from Illinois and Indiana","authors":"Mohammad H. Rahmati, D. Hyman, Bernard Black, Jing Liu, C. Silver","doi":"10.1111/jels.12173","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Many physicians and tort reform advocates believe that most medical malpractice (“med mal”) claims are “frivolous”; they often rely on reports that only about 20% of claims result in a payout. Many physicians and reform advocates also believe that plaintiffs lawyers often sue every health provider with even a remote a connection to the patient. Plaintiffs’ lawyers insist that they screen med mal cases carefully, and when they bring a claim, are selective in whom they sue. Can these perspectives be harmonized? We study this question using databases of every insured med mal claim closed in Illinois during 2000-2010 and in Indiana during 1980-2015; and semi-structured interviews with six plaintiffs’ lawyers. We innovate by using defense costs to assess whether the plaintiffs’ lawyers take a case seriously. We treat cases with under $5k in defense spending as “non-serious” cases, unless they have a payout over $25k. We find evidence that many “cases” are non-serious – they never involved filed lawsuits or if they did, the suits were soon dropped – indicating that screening is an ongoing process that does not end when a case is accepted. Observed success rates are sensitive to whether one counts “claims” (each defendant is a separate claim) or “cases” (one plaintiff versus one or more defendants), includes both pro se and represented cases, and includes all versus only serious cases. If we analyze cases instead of claims and limit to serious, represented cases, we find much higher success rates (43% in Illinois; 44% in Indiana). Success rates are higher still in cases brought solely against institutional defendants (58% in Illinois; 68% in Indiana). Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also selective in the number of defendants they sue. In med mal cases involving only physicians and/or institutions, the mean number of defendants is 1.5 in Illinois and 1.8 in Indiana. \nOnline Appendix can be found here: \nhttp://ssrn.com/abstract=3010344.","PeriodicalId":320322,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Tort Litigation","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Tort Litigation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12173","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Many physicians and tort reform advocates believe that most medical malpractice (“med mal”) claims are “frivolous”; they often rely on reports that only about 20% of claims result in a payout. Many physicians and reform advocates also believe that plaintiffs lawyers often sue every health provider with even a remote a connection to the patient. Plaintiffs’ lawyers insist that they screen med mal cases carefully, and when they bring a claim, are selective in whom they sue. Can these perspectives be harmonized? We study this question using databases of every insured med mal claim closed in Illinois during 2000-2010 and in Indiana during 1980-2015; and semi-structured interviews with six plaintiffs’ lawyers. We innovate by using defense costs to assess whether the plaintiffs’ lawyers take a case seriously. We treat cases with under $5k in defense spending as “non-serious” cases, unless they have a payout over $25k. We find evidence that many “cases” are non-serious – they never involved filed lawsuits or if they did, the suits were soon dropped – indicating that screening is an ongoing process that does not end when a case is accepted. Observed success rates are sensitive to whether one counts “claims” (each defendant is a separate claim) or “cases” (one plaintiff versus one or more defendants), includes both pro se and represented cases, and includes all versus only serious cases. If we analyze cases instead of claims and limit to serious, represented cases, we find much higher success rates (43% in Illinois; 44% in Indiana). Success rates are higher still in cases brought solely against institutional defendants (58% in Illinois; 68% in Indiana). Plaintiffs’ lawyers are also selective in the number of defendants they sue. In med mal cases involving only physicians and/or institutions, the mean number of defendants is 1.5 in Illinois and 1.8 in Indiana. Online Appendix can be found here: http://ssrn.com/abstract=3010344.
医疗事故诉讼中筛选原告和选择被告:来自伊利诺伊州和印第安纳州的证据
许多医生和侵权改革倡导者认为,大多数医疗事故(“med mal”)索赔是“轻浮的”;他们经常依赖的报告是,只有大约20%的索赔最终会得到赔偿。许多医生和改革倡导者也认为,原告律师经常起诉每一个与病人有远程联系的医疗服务提供者。原告律师坚持说,他们会仔细筛选医疗案件,当他们提出索赔时,他们会有选择性地起诉谁。这些观点能够协调一致吗?我们使用了2000-2010年在伊利诺伊州和1980-2015年在印第安纳州完成的所有医疗事故保险索赔的数据库来研究这个问题;以及对六名原告律师的半结构化采访。我们创新地使用辩护费用来评估原告律师是否认真对待案件。我们把国防开支低于5000美元的案件视为“非严重”案件,除非他们的支出超过2.5万美元。我们发现有证据表明,许多“案件”并不严重——它们从未涉及提起诉讼,或者即使提起诉讼,诉讼也很快被撤销——这表明筛选是一个持续的过程,并不会在案件被接受后结束。观察到的成功率对一个人是否计算“索赔”(每个被告都是一个单独的索赔)或“案件”(一个原告对一个或多个被告)很敏感,包括自辩案件和被代理案件,包括所有案件,而只包括严重案件。如果我们分析案例而不是索赔,并将其限制在严重的、有代表性的案例中,我们会发现成功率要高得多(伊利诺伊州为43%;印第安纳州44%)。仅针对机构被告的案件成功率更高(伊利诺伊州为58%;印第安纳州68%)。原告律师在起诉被告的数量上也是有选择性的。在仅涉及医生和/或机构的医疗案件中,被告的平均人数在伊利诺伊州为1.5人,在印第安纳州为1.8人。在线附录可以在这里找到:http://ssrn.com/abstract=3010344。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信