Widman Amy, Hochberg Francine A
Center for Justice and Democracy.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008 Aug;33(4):799-832. doi: 10.1215/03616878-2008-016.
This commentary responds to the essay by Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith wherein they propose that the federal government may preclude plaintiffs with medically inflicted injuries from bringing state common-law tort claims against those whose negligence caused their injury. The administrative system championed by Elliott and other proponents is a radical departure from the current civil justice system. Specifically, we argue that the administrative health courts, as proposed, violate the commerce clause, the spending clause, the Seventh Amendment, and separation of powers principles. The commentary concludes that such a system is fatally flawed and cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. Moreover, we are not persuaded that Congress will be able to ground such a radical constitutional restructuring in any sound public policy, as the majority of studies do not evidence Elliott, Narayan, and Nasmith's presumption that the civil justice system has failed in the medical malpractice context.
本评论是对埃利奥特、纳拉扬和内史密斯所写文章的回应。在文章中，他们提议联邦政府可能会阻止因医疗伤害而受伤的原告根据州普通法侵权索赔针对那些因其疏忽导致其受伤的人提起诉讼。埃利奥特及其他支持者所倡导的行政系统与当前的民事司法系统截然不同。具体而言，我们认为所提议的行政健康法庭违反了商业条款、支出条款、第七修正案以及权力分立原则。本评论的结论是，这样一个系统存在致命缺陷，无法经受住宪法审查。此外，我们不相信国会能够基于任何合理的公共政策进行如此激进的宪法重组，因为大多数研究并未证明埃利奥特、纳拉扬和内史密斯所假定的民事司法系统在医疗事故方面已经失败。
