Abstract
The American tort system has been the target of medical malpractice reform efforts for close to fifty years. Using different “crisis” narratives, reform advocates argue that litigation costs must be contained, that alternative methods for compensating injured patients should replace the tort system, and that healthcare delivery systems must change to reduce the incidence of patient injury. In pursuit of these different reform objectives, state legislatures enact laws that, for medical malpractice claims, change both substantive tort doctrine and procedure. For procedural reforms, policymakers turn repeatedly to ADR to fix perceived problems with the medical malpractice system, enacting statutes that mandate or direct parties to utilize specific ADR processes. This Article argues that ADR procedural interventions have substantive reform goals in the medical malpractice context. Ironically, these successive generations of medical malpractice ADR demonstrate a diminishing primacy of tort, rendering ADR not only an alternative process but also a venue for alternative models of corrective justice.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call