The Truth About "Health Courts" - Say Goodbye to Juries

In the context of medical malpractice and the health care debate, a new proposal may be surfacing called “health courts” that would force all medical malpractice cases out of the court system.  These measures have a strong public relations spin attached to them – promises of a faster, more reliable system of resolving medical malpractice claims.  The truth?

“Health courts” are a terrible, anti-patient and highly controversial concept that has gotten no traction whatsoever at the state level. Consumer groups  and victims are strongly opposed to them, even though this point is often drowned-out of slick presentations by health court proponents.

Health courts force all medical malpractice cases into an administrative system based on the disastrous workers comp model  (a new bureaucracy would need to be created), but they are worse since patients would still have to prove a form of negligence and the decision-makers would come from medical community with clear conflicts of interest. The right to jury trial is eliminated, which the public does not support. There are few accountability mechanisms, few procedural safeguards, and no meaningful appeals process. There may be schedule of benefits (so much for a foot, a lung), and a severe cap on non-economic damages (or they may be eliminated altogether). These hardships, coupled with the burden of having to prove fault or “causation,” render the injured patient virtually powerless and at the mercy of the insurance and medical industries.

They are also unconstitutional. At least 11 states have found other, less radical medical liability tort restrictions violate their state constitution’s right to jury, including Illinois last month. 

Comments

[KJO]

If the panel consisted of 4 doc's and 4 previously injured patients that were locked in a room and could not come out until at least 6 of them agreed. It might be fun to serve.