Thinking outside the jury box: Another tort reform answer

Some legal and health care observers are proposing health courts as a solution to the medical liability crisis.

By Mike Norbut, AMNews staff. Nov. 14, 2005.

Imagine a world where a jury would not decide your fate if you were the target of a malpractice lawsuit. Instead, a judge with medical expertise would rule.

Rather than dueling medical experts, a single court-hired expert would evaluate the evidence against the standard of care. And in place of head-scratching judgments that vary from jury to jury, there would be a consistent schedule of compensation based on the severity and nature of a patient's injury.

These are the concepts driving health courts, an idea some legal and health care observers are pitching as a solution to today's much-maligned medical liability system.

It's an idea many physicians are open to, and it's gaining traction in Congress.

"What we've got now is a broken system," said David A. Ellington, MD, a family physician who is finishing his term as president of the Medical Society of Virginia. "The whole concept of medical justice is an oxymoron."

The health court idea "has great possibilities," though the AMA isn't going to drop its tort reform agenda to pursue it as the sole solution, said AMA President J. Edward Hill, MD. The Association continues to lobby for federal reforms, most notably a $250,000 cap on noneconomic damages in medical liability cases. The AMA also has been involved in developing a health court model, he said.

"Medical courts are certainly worth testing, but when we have a proven solution right now, we should implement that while we're waiting to try to set up the court system," Dr. Hill said.