Regarding the Massachusetts Supreme Court's recent unilateral liberalization of the doctrine, one of the same questions I keep asking also bothers Anthony Sebok: why are less-than-even probabilities supposed to be taken into account for the purposes of increasing recoveries, but never for reducing them? Thus a 49 cent likelihood of negligent harm will now pay off at 49 cents on the dollar, while a 51 percent likelihood will pay off not at 51 cents, but at 100, as before. Awfully convenient, that, no?
Med mal "loss of a chance", cont'd
- Medical malpractice reform passes House
- HR 5
- A separate thought on Farber-White and medical malpractice
- A shocking concession by Svorny on medical malpractice caps
- Spirited med-mal debate complete!
- Marie Gryphon cited for work on loser pays
- New Featured Discussion: MI and Cato scholars debate med-mal
- Arafiles update
- Liability for thee, but not for me
- Texas tort reform could be a 2012 issue
- Illusory medical malpractice reform in New York
- Around the web, June 5
- Somin on federalism and tort reform
- The constitutionality of HR 5
- The Commerce Clause, sufficient for federal medical tort reform?
Center for Legal Policy at the