IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v3y2006i3p467-496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Placing “Standard of Care” in Context: The Impact of Witness Potential and Attorney Reputation in Medical Malpractice Litigation

Author

Listed:
  • Catherine T. Harris
  • Ralph Peeples
  • Thomas B. Metzloff

Abstract

Previous empirical studies have speculated about the role that factors other than negligence play in the resolution of medical malpractice claims. The present study identifies and evaluates the impact of three “strategic variables” in the medical malpractice litigation process: the witness potential of the defendant physician, the witness potential of the plaintiff, and the reputation of the plaintiff's attorney. These factors, unrelated to standard of care, make a difference in the outcome of medical malpractice cases. Data were collected from insurance company files on cases filed in the North Carolina state courts between 1991 and 1995. Analyses revealed that when the insurers’ outside (physician) reviewers rated liability as probable, based on standard of care, settlement occurred in most of the cases. However, when liability was rated as uncertain or unlikely, strategic variables such as perceived witness potential and the reputation of the plaintiff's counsel were significant predictors of case outcome. Cases in which the defendant physician had a strategic advantage were much less likely to settle, while cases in which the plaintiff had a strategic advantage were much more likely to settle.

Suggested Citation

  • Catherine T. Harris & Ralph Peeples & Thomas B. Metzloff, 2006. "Placing “Standard of Care” in Context: The Impact of Witness Potential and Attorney Reputation in Medical Malpractice Litigation," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 3(3), pages 467-496, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:3:y:2006:i:3:p:467-496
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00076.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00076.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2006.00076.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Bernard Black & Charles Silver & David A. Hyman & William M. Sage, 2005. "Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas, 1988–2002," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 2(2), pages 207-259, July.
    2. Henry S. Farber & Michelle J. White, 1991. "Medical Malpractice: An Empirical Examination of the Litigation Process," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 22(2), pages 199-217, Summer.
    3. Morreim, E. Haavi, 2001. "Holding Health Care Accountable: Law and the New Medical Marketplace," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780195141320, Decembrie.
    4. Cooter, Robert D & Rubinfeld, Daniel L, 1989. "Economic Analysis of Legal Disputes and Their Resolution," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 27(3), pages 1067-1097, September.
    5. Sloan, Frank A. & Githens, Penny B. & Clayton, Ellen Wright & Hickson, Gerald B., 1993. "Suing for Medical Malpractice," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226762791, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yasutora Watanabe, 2005. "Learning and Bargaining in Dispute Resolution: Theory and Evidence from Medical Malpractice Litigation," 2005 Meeting Papers 440, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    2. Lee D. Cranberg & Thomas H. Glick & Luke Sato, 2007. "Do the Claims Hold Up? A Study of Medical Negligence Claims Against Neurologists," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 4(1), pages 155-162, March.
    3. Steven Garber & John Adams, 1998. "Product and Stock Market Responses to Automotive Prodct Liability Verdicts," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 29(1998 Micr), pages 1-53.
    4. Theodore Eisenberg & Henry S. Farber, 1996. "The Litigious Plaintiff Hypothesis: Case Selection and Resolution," Working Papers 743, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    5. Peter Grajzl & Katarina Zajc, 2017. "Litigation and the timing of settlement: evidence from commercial disputes," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 287-319, October.
    6. Spurr, Stephen J., 2000. "The role of nonbinding alternative dispute resolution in litigation," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 42(1), pages 75-96, May.
    7. Henri Fraisse, 2010. "Labour Disputes and the Game of Legal Representation," CESifo Working Paper Series 3084, CESifo.
    8. Holger Sieg, 2000. "Estimating a Bargaining Model with Asymmetric Information: Evidence from Medical Malpractice Disputes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 108(5), pages 1006-1021, October.
    9. Daniel P. Kessler & Daniel L. Rubinfeld, 2004. "Empirical Study of the Civil Justice System," NBER Working Papers 10825, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    10. Steven Shavell, 2005. "Liability for Accidents," NBER Working Papers 11781, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Hughes, James W. & Savoca, Elizabeth, 1997. "Measuring the effect of legal reforms on the longevity of medical malpractice claims," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 261-273, June.
    12. Steven Shavell, 2003. "Economic Analysis of Litigation and the Legal Process," NBER Working Papers 9697, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Pyle, William, 2006. "Resolutions, recoveries and relationships: The evolution of payment disputes in Central and Eastern Europe," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 317-337, June.
    14. Schankerman, Mark & Lanjouw, Jean, 2001. "Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights," CEPR Discussion Papers 3093, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    15. Carsten Hefeker & Michael Neugart, 2016. "Policy deviations, uncertainty, and the European Court of Justice," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(3), pages 547-567, December.
    16. Schmid, A. Allan, 1992. "Institutional Foundations of the Market Economy with Reference to the Transition Process taking Place in Eastern and Central Europe," Staff Paper Series 201152, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural, Food, and Resource Economics.
    17. Metin Cosgel & Thomas J. Miceli & Emre Özer, 2023. "Resolving Lawsuits with a Decisive Oath: An Economic Analysis," Working papers 2023-03, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics, revised Sep 2024.
    18. Peter Van Wijck & Ben Van Velthoven, 2000. "An Economic Analysis of the American and the Continental Rule for Allocating Legal Costs," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 9(2), pages 115-125, March.
    19. W. Bentley MacLeod, 2006. "Reputations, Relationships and the Enforcement of Incomplete Contracts," CESifo Working Paper Series 1730, CESifo.
    20. Argenton, Cedric & Wang, Xiaoyu, 2020. "Litigation and Settlement under Loss Aversion," Other publications TiSEM b6c48abc-9b47-4c3b-848b-3, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:3:y:2006:i:3:p:467-496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.