 | |
| |
| |
| |
 | |
| |
|
|
|
|
| | |
|||
|
|
|
Topics
Consumer Concerns and Advice Recent UpdatesJune 18, 2008 June 13, 2008 June 11, 2008 May 27, 2008 May 20, 2008 Archives
May, 2008 Web ResourcesChalat Hatten & Koupal PC
|
Posted by: Linda Chalat
Peters notes several explanations for juries' pro-defendant behavior that warrant further study, including juries' skepticism of patients who file lawsuits against their doctors and the possibility that defendants usually have more experienced lawyers and better experts. The study also theorizes that juries take the burden of proof seriously in medical malpractice cases, which leads them to side with doctors when both sides have credible experts. Peters concludes by noting that medical malpractice reform "should not be driven by the mistaken assumption that juries treat physicians unfairly." Peters' Doctors & Juries study will be published in the May 2007 issue of the Michigan Law Review. |
|
The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. | |
The study, by professor Philip Peters Jr. at Columbia School of Law, also concludes that plaintiffs win only 10% to 20% of cases experts believe they should lose. Defendants prevail in 70% of cases considered close calls.