Proposals now before the Bay State legislature would adopt proportionate liability in place of joint and several liability; set the prejudgment interest rate at the same as Treasury bills, instead of four (!) points higher; require that plaintiff's expert witnesses be board certified in the same specialty as defendant physicians; allow periodic payments; and allow consideration of collateral sources. The Massachusetts Medical Society's testimony in favor is here, and a Worcester Telegram editorial was recently supportive as well.
Massachusetts med-mal reform
- Medical malpractice reform passes House
- Federal constitutional challenge to Texas tort reform rejected
- HR 5
- New Featured Discussion: MI and Cato scholars debate med-mal
- Arafiles update
- Around the web, July 27
- Around the web, June 24
- Around the web, June 16
- Illusory medical malpractice reform in New York
- "Intent to Harm"
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- Around the web, May 23
- The constitutionality of HR 5
- "Have Policy Debates on Liability Reform Overemphasized States' Rights?"
- The Commerce Clause, sufficient for federal medical tort reform?