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
- No relationship between million-dollar-plus medmal payouts and prior record
- What the Gosnell case tells us about medical malpractice efficacy
- Suing doctors and drug companies for addiction to pain medication?
- Epstein on providing for the poor
- "Supreme Court case involves medical malpractice awards, Medicaid"
- Does medical malpractice liability lead to better quality health care?
- Missouri Supreme Court strikes down noneconomic damage caps in med mal cases
- Medical malpractice reform in New Hampshire
- Post-tort-reform Texas doctor supply
- Making the case for federal tort reform
- 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!
Center for Legal Policy at the