Vidmar Neil
Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC 27708-0360, USA.
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):367-75. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0608-6. Epub 2008 Nov 11.
Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled for much less than the verdicts.
医疗事故审判中的陪审团被认为没有能力、敌视医生、在判定患者损害赔偿时不负责任，并且给和解过程投下了威胁性的阴影。几十年的系统实证研究几乎没有支持这些说法。本文总结了这些研究结果。在进入审判的案件中，医生大约每四起能赢三起。陪审团对夸大的索赔持怀疑态度。陪审团对过失的裁决大致与医学专家和法官的评估相似。损害赔偿裁决往往与伤害的严重程度呈正相关。高额损害赔偿裁决是有合理理由的。此外，最高的裁决通常以远低于判决的金额达成和解。
