title: Juries and medical malpractice claims: empirical facts versus myths.
abstract: Juries in medical malpractice trials are viewed as incompetent, antidoctor, irresponsible in awarding damages to patients, and casting a threatening shadow over the settlement process. Several decades of systematic empirical research yields little support for these claims. This article summarizes those findings. Doctors win about three cases of four that go to trial. Juries are skeptical about inflated claims. Jury verdicts on negligence are roughly similar to assessments made by medical experts and judges. Damage awards tend to correlate positively with the severity of injury. There are defensible reasons for large damage awards. Moreover, the largest awards are typically settled for much less than the verdicts.
authors.affiliation: Duke University School of Law, Durham, NC 27708-0360, USA. vidmar@law.duke.edu
authors.forename: Neil
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Vidmar
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D007351:Insurance, Liability; D008318:Malpractice / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D017008:Negotiating; D010820:Physicians / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D014481:United States