Medical Malpractice Recovery Rates for Surgical Negligence and Improper Medication
Medical malpractice plaintiffs receive a median award of $934,487 for medical malpractice claims involving surgical negligence and improper medication, according to a recent Jury Verdict Research study that looked at medical malpractice cases nationally in the last seven years. Plaintiffs have a 36% chance of prevailing in these cases. The following is the listing of different types of cases and the corresponding likelihood of recovery.
Failed Sterilization 35%
Catheterization 39%
Foreign Object Left in Body 66%
Lack of Informed Consent 25%
Postsurgical Infection 43%
In Maryland, there has not been a study of medical malpractice claims that breaks out the likelihood for different types of malpractice claims as Jury Verdict Research has done nationally. In Maryland medical malpractice cases overall, Plaintiff's prevail 8% of the time with an average recovery of $806,772. But I think the reason for the low figure is not that Maryland juries are tough on medical malpractice victims or that they are willing to give doctors a pass on their negligence (although this certainly happens in some medical malpractice cases). Instead, I think Medical Mutual, the largest medical malpractice carrier in Maryland, has a history of settling cases if the Maryland medical malpractice lawyer is able to make a compelling case at the close of discovery.
Bookmark: 
Comments
These studies really highlight the fact that these cases must be advanced after a thorough and careful investigation considering the investment of resources it takes to properly prosecute a medical malpractice case.
Of interest to readers in this area of law, you might want to look at "Medical Malpractice and the American Jury" by Neil Vidmar, Duke University Law Professor & Social Psychology. I have included a review of his book: "Neil Vidmar looks beyond the common perceptions of medical malpractice litigation and finds a system that is fair, impartial, and intelligent. Firmly grounded in a wealth of empirical data, the author presents a fresh look at a civil jury system that has been maligned as out-of-touch, capricious, and disposed to awarding exorbitant, unjustified amounts to plaintiffs whenever they have the opportunity. In an era when tort reform is high on the congressional agenda, Medical Malpractice and the American Jury is almost alone in voicing reason and fact.
Written in a thoroughly inviting, jargon-free style, Medical Malpractice and the American Jury places those cases that go to trial in the broader context of litigation, noting that only about ten percent of malpractice cases ever result in trials. Of those that do go to trial, the author notes, more than two out of three cases are decided in the doctor's favor--repudiating the view that jurors are inherently biased against doctors and are motivated more by sympathy for the plaintiff than by the facts of the case.
Neil Vidmar comprehensively addresses all the claims that have been leveled against the performance of malpractice juries. For example, he compares actual jury decisions on negligence with neutral physicians' ratings of whether negligence occurred in the medical treatment and finds a remarkable consistency--repudiating the view that jurors are unable to understand experts or uncritically defer to their opinion."
A good read for those of us advocating on behalf of victims of medical malpractice.
Very Truly Yours,
Gabriel A. Riveros
Toll Free Number 866-425-9555; E-mail: gabrielriveros@comcast.net
Posted by: Gabriel A. Riveros | August 29, 2006 3:15 PM
These studies really highlight the fact that these cases must be advanced after a thorough and careful investigation considering the investment of resources it takes to properly prosecute a medical malpractice case.
Of interest to readers in this area of law, you might want to look at "Medical Malpractice and the American Jury" by Neil Vidmar, Duke University Law Professor & Social Psychology. I have included a review of his book: "Neil Vidmar looks beyond the common perceptions of medical malpractice litigation and finds a system that is fair, impartial, and intelligent. Firmly grounded in a wealth of empirical data, the author presents a fresh look at a civil jury system that has been maligned as out-of-touch, capricious, and disposed to awarding exorbitant, unjustified amounts to plaintiffs whenever they have the opportunity. In an era when tort reform is high on the congressional agenda, Medical Malpractice and the American Jury is almost alone in voicing reason and fact.
Written in a thoroughly inviting, jargon-free style, Medical Malpractice and the American Jury places those cases that go to trial in the broader context of litigation, noting that only about ten percent of malpractice cases ever result in trials. Of those that do go to trial, the author notes, more than two out of three cases are decided in the doctor's favor--repudiating the view that jurors are inherently biased against doctors and are motivated more by sympathy for the plaintiff than by the facts of the case.
Neil Vidmar comprehensively addresses all the claims that have been leveled against the performance of malpractice juries. For example, he compares actual jury decisions on negligence with neutral physicians' ratings of whether negligence occurred in the medical treatment and finds a remarkable consistency--repudiating the view that jurors are unable to understand experts or uncritically defer to their opinion."
A good read for those of us advocating on behalf of victims of medical malpractice.
Very Truly Yours,
Gabriel A. Riveros
Toll Free Number 866-425-9555; E-mail: gabrielriveros@comcast.net
Posted by: Gabriel A. Riveros | August 29, 2006 3:16 PM