陪审团与医疗事故索赔：实证事实与误解
Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths.
作者信息
Vidmar Neil
机构信息
Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC 27708-0360, USA.
出版信息
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):367-75. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0608-6. Epub 2008 Nov 11.
Abstract
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.
摘要
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。
相似文献
1
Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths.陪审团与医疗事故索赔：实证事实与误解
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):367-75. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0608-6. Epub 2008 Nov 11.
2
Will my malpractice case be settled? The physician-defendant's voice in the decision.我的医疗事故案件会得到解决吗？医生被告在决策中的声音。
Semin Diagn Pathol. 2007 May;24(2):119-30. doi: 10.1053/j.semdp.2007.03.009.
3
Medical malpractice in Michigan: an economic analysis.密歇根州的医疗事故：一项经济分析。
J Health Polit Policy Law. 1996 Summer;21(2):315-46. doi: 10.1215/03616878-21-2-315.
4
Jury verdicts, outcomes, and tort reform features of malpractice cases involving thoracic outlet syndrome.涉及胸廓出口综合征的医疗事故案件的陪审团裁决、结果和侵权改革特征。
J Vasc Surg. 2022 Mar;75(3):962-967. doi: 10.1016/j.jvs.2021.08.098. Epub 2021 Sep 30.
5
Clinical assessment of malpractice case scenarios in an anesthesiology department.
J Clin Anesth. 1999 Jun;11(4):267-79. doi: 10.1016/s0952-8180(99)00044-6.
6
Surgical malpractice in California: res judicata.加利福尼亚州的医疗事故：既判力。
Am Surg. 2014 Oct;80(10):1007-11.
7
Twenty years of evidence on the outcomes of malpractice claims.关于医疗事故索赔结果的二十年证据。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2009 Feb;467(2):352-7. doi: 10.1007/s11999-008-0631-7. Epub 2008 Dec 2.
8
Assessment of malpractice claims due to spinal epidural abscess.因脊柱硬膜外脓肿导致的医疗事故索赔评估。
J Neurosurg Spine. 2017 Oct;27(4):476-480. doi: 10.3171/2016.12.SPINE16814. Epub 2017 May 12.
9
Malpractice insurance rates reach boiling point. Physicians burned by lawyers, lawsuits and jury awards.医疗事故保险费率达到沸点。医生被律师、诉讼和陪审团裁决搞得焦头烂额。
Physician Exec. 2002 Mar-Apr;28(2):12-4.
10
Statutory caps: an involuntary contribution to the medical malpractice insurance crisis or a reasonable mechanism for obtaining affordable health care?法定上限：是对医疗事故保险危机的非自愿贡献，还是获得可负担医疗保健的合理机制？
J Contemp Health Law Policy. 1993 Spring;9:337-75.
引用本文的文献
1
Controversies in the Application of AI in Radiology-Is There Medico-Legal Support? Aspects from Romanian Practice.人工智能在放射学应用中的争议——是否有医疗法律支持？罗马尼亚实践的相关方面
Diagnostics (Basel). 2025 Jan 20;15(2):230. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics15020230.
2
When Does Physician Use of AI Increase Liability?当医生使用人工智能时会增加哪些责任？
J Nucl Med. 2021 Jan;62(1):17-21. doi: 10.2967/jnumed.120.256032. Epub 2020 Sep 25.
3
A National WestlawNext Database Analysis of Malpractice Litigation in Radiation Oncology.对放射肿瘤学医疗事故诉讼的威科先行国家数据库分析。
Fed Pract. 2018 Feb;35(Suppl 1):S44-S52.
4
Redefining the Practice of Peer Review Through Intelligent Automation Part 1: Creation of a Standardized Methodology and Referenceable Database.通过智能自动化重新定义同行评审实践 第 1 部分：创建标准化方法和可参考数据库。
J Digit Imaging. 2017 Oct;30(5):530-533. doi: 10.1007/s10278-017-0004-4.
5
Advancing the Public's Health by Scaling Innovations in Clinical Quality.通过扩大临床质量创新来促进公众健康。
Public Health Rep. 2017 Jul/Aug;132(4):512-517. doi: 10.1177/0033354917709982. Epub 2017 Jun 8.
6
Claims, liabilities, injures and compensation payments of medical malpractice litigation cases in China from 1998 to 2011.1998年至2011年中国医疗事故诉讼案件的索赔、责任、伤害及赔偿支付情况。
BMC Health Serv Res. 2014 Sep 13;14:390. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-14-390.
7
Closed medical negligence claims can drive patient safety and reduce litigation.封存医疗过失索赔可推动患者安全并减少诉讼。
Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2012 May;470(5):1398-404. doi: 10.1007/s11999-012-2308-5.
8
Malpractice suits and physician apologies in cancer care.癌症护理中的医疗事故诉讼与医生道歉
J Oncol Pract. 2011 Nov;7(6):389-93. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2011.000264. Epub 2011 Oct 18.
本文引用的文献
1
Claims, errors, and compensation payments in medical malpractice litigation.医疗事故诉讼中的索赔、失误及赔偿金支付
N Engl J Med. 2006 May 11;354(19):2024-33. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa054479.
2
Medical malpractice as an epidemiological problem.作为一个流行病学问题的医疗事故。
Soc Sci Med. 2004 Jul;59(1):39-46. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2003.09.034.
3
Settlement has many faces: physicians, attorneys and medical malpractice.
J Health Soc Behav. 2000 Sep;41(3):333-46.
4
Damage awards and jurors' responsibility ascriptions in medical versus automobile negligence cases.医疗过失案件与汽车过失案件中的损害赔偿裁决及陪审员的责任认定
Behav Sci Law. 1994 Spring;12(2):149-60. doi: 10.1002/bsl.2370120205.
5
6
A fault-based administrative alternative for resolving medical malpractice claims.一种基于过错的行政替代方案，用于解决医疗事故索赔。
Spec Law Dig Health Care (Mon). 1990 Dec(142):7-48.
7
An analysis of closed obstetric malpractice claims.一项关于产科闭合性医疗事故索赔的分析。
Obstet Gynecol. 1989 Nov;74(5):710-4.
8
The influence of standard of care and severity of injury on the resolution of medical malpractice claims.医疗护理标准和损伤严重程度对医疗事故索赔解决的影响。
Ann Intern Med. 1992 Nov 1;117(9):780-4. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-117-9-780.
Zotero 插件