|
medpundit |
||
 |
 |
|
Tuesday, January 20, 2004Despite several bursts of malpractice litigation in the 1800s, suing physicians was an arduous undertaking until the latter half of the 20th century. At that time, the judiciary began dismantling barriers that plaintiffs faced in bringing tort litigation. This change occurred in many areas of accident law but was particularly prominent in medical malpractice in the 1960s and early 1970s. Judges discarded rules that had traditionally posed obstacles to litigation. For example, most jurisdictions rolled back charitable immunity for hospitals. Courts also moved toward national standards of care and abandoned strict interpretations of the "locality rule," which had required plaintiffs to find expert witnesses within the defendant's immediate practice community. At the same time, expansion of doctrines such as informed consent and res ipsa loquitur (the rule that certain events, such as the retention of instruments after surgery, carry an inference of negligence) paved new pathways to the courtroom. The more plaintiff-friendly environment fostered by these changes altered the cost–benefit calculus for plaintiffs' attorneys, leading to a steady growth in litigation. Maybe it's time to roll back the roll backs. posted by Sydney on 1/20/2004 10:30:00 PM 0 comments 0 Comments: |
|
