To find fault is easy, to find no-fault is fair

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.