Abstract
The inequity of medical negligence-based adversarial litigation in the USA, UK and Australia is a recognised target for reform. Plaintiff autonomy is weakened by a dispute resolution system that has evolved around lawyers, opposed experts and indemnity insurers; the need to prove breach and causation excludes compensation for other categories of medical injury; and patient access to the system is restricted by high entry costs. Two strategies towards reform are raised here. A short-term approach involves routine initial use of a single court-appointed medical expert for assessment of errors and liabilities, thus improving access while relegating fault-finding to a reserve role. In the longer term, adversarial litigation could be replaced in part by a no-fault compensation scheme - such as in Scandinavia, France and New Zealand - funded by taxation and by re-directed medical indemnity fees. Reforms such as these would be challenging to implement, but are achievable, so it is not premature for relevant bodies to consider a timetable for action.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
