Mandatory Arbitration and Civil Litigation: An Empirical Study of Medical Malpractice Litigation in the West
AbstractThis article looks at the effect that pretrial, statutorily required screening panels in Nevada have had on medical malpractice litigation. I use two unique data sets on litigation in Nevada and neighboring states from 1983--88, during which the Nevada legislature enacted screening panels. Applying time-series and difference-in-difference analyses, I show that observed decreases in Nevada with respect to damage awards, attorney's fees, and duration in litigation reflected a broader secular trend. The panels did, however, reduce the relative probability of claims requiring resolution by the Nevada courts. Copyright 2004, Oxford University Press.
Download InfoTo our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by Oxford University Press in its journal American Law and Economics Review.
Volume (Year): 6 (2004)
Issue (Month): 1 ()
Contact details of provider:
Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://www.aler.oupjournals.org/
You can help add them by filling out this form.
reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.Access and download statisticsgeneral information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press) or (Christopher F. Baum).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.