News & Events

DURHAM, N.C. -- Neil Vidmar, Russell M. Robinson, II, Professor of Law, will testify on medical liability reform before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions on Thursday, June 22.

Vidmar, who has studied the tort system in medical malpractice cases, will challenge the proposal in the Fair and Reliable Medical Justice Act, introduced by Sens. Michael Enzi (R-WY) and Max Baucus (D-MT), to take such cases out of the tort system and instead establish special “health courts” to hear them.

The hearing begins at 10 a.m.

Vidmar has done empirical research on medical malpractice litigation, jury awards and settlements since 1987. He is the author of numerous articles, as well as the book "Medical Malpractice and the American Jury: Confronting the Myths about Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, and Outrageous Damage Awards" (University of Michigan Press, 1995). He also wrote "Medical Malpractice Litigation in Pennsylvania," a report commissioned and funded by the Pennsylvania Bar Association that was released earlier this week. He will cite sections of the report in his testimony.

Vidmar says empirical research strongly contradicts many commonly held beliefs about the tort and jury systems, including the ideas that jury awards are excessive and irrational and that “abusive litigation” is driving doctors out of practice in certain areas of the country. Research indicates, he says, that plaintiffs lose most trials before juries and that damage awards correlate closely with the severity of injury.

For more information, please contact Frances Presma (919) 613-7248 or presma@law.duke.edu.



Summary:

Medical Liability: New Ideas for Making the System Work Better for Patients

  1. Empirical research contradicts mythology about the tort system in medical malpractice litigation.
  2. Medical Injuries resulting from medical negligence are a serious problem and have high economic and emotional costs for injured patients.
  3. The tort system performs well in separating meritorious and non-meritorious claims.
  4. Research shows that jury verdicts are not biased against doctors, that they are consistent with judgments of medical experts, the opinions of trial judges that they are not “overwhelmed” by plaintiff’s experts and that awards positively correlate with plaintiffs injuries and economic losses.
  5. Caps on so-called “non-economic” damage awards are unfair and do not reduce medical liability insurance premiums. “Defined payment schedules” in some proposed alternatives to jury trial suffer from the same problems as caps.
  6. Claims about “frivolous litigation” are not supported by empirical research.
  7. Research on closed claims show that allegations about increased litigation costs are not supported.
  8. Claims about a “doctor exodus” from states alleged to have “an abusive litigation climate” are contradicted by official statistics of he American Medical Association. 

Download the complete testimony (.pdf)