Personal Injury Resources

The U.S. Congress is working on malpractice legislation, so this Harvard report is apt. The study doesn't say that malpractice suits in and of themselves are bad. It simply points out that the malpractice system isn't working very well to achieve better medicine. That's like saying the health insurance system isn't working very well to achieve better medicine.

The current tort-based medical malpractice system fails to meet any of three basic goals:

It does not identify patients injured as the result of medical care.

It fails to reimburse injured patients commensurate with the degree of their injury and loss.

It does not identify "bad" physicians and is counterproductive to developing systems that would help reduce medical errors.

The Harvard Medical Malpractice Study reviewed 30,000 hospital admissions in New York State in 1984. It is the largest and most detailed study published that evaluates hospital medical care.

The study identified 1,278 adverse events among this patient population, including 306 instances of negligence. Of these 306 negligently injured patients, eight entered the current malpractice system--fewer than 3 percent.

Failure to identify injured patients precludes any effective remuneration to the injured patient. Further data from the same study helps explain why the system is so terribly expensive.