Adversarial Legalism and Civil Litigation: Prospects for Change

Abstract

Rarely does a week go in the United States without a news report of a tort claim. The stories nearly always involve commentary from individuals who either decry or applaud the development. Examples abound. In the forefront this past summer were stories concerning medical malpractice. For example, the Washington Post published a story concerning the closing of the only medical trauma center in Las Vegas, Nevada, occasioned by the mass resignation of dozens of surgeons, who say the soaring cost of malpractice insurance and lawsuits threatened their livelihoods (Booth 2002, A2). The story reported that emergency rooms around the nation were closing and doctors were withdrawing from similar types of practice because of the costs of lawsuits. Casting the resigning doctors in the role of victims, John Fildes, a surgeon and the director of University Medical Center said, We want to be here, that's the sad thing. physicians want to take care of patients, but they are withdrawing from high-risk activities to protect their families and livelihoods. Not surprisingly, plaintiff's personal injury lawyers had a different view. They just wanted to terrorize the community with this walkout, said Jim Crockett, a Las Vegas lawyer. These doctors are holding this community hostage.1