Thank you. Very thoughtful and on-point analysis. I agree. There will be no -- and can be no -- simple solution. What I see as the most practical approach involves not changing the law but rather making very attempt to reduce the act of malpractice. Such attempts would identify physicians who may be prone to sexually abusing patients (this is a key component of the project I'm working on that intersects tort reform), physicians hampered by addictions and/or emotional difficulties, minimizing avoidable stressors, etc. Malpractice that results from "random" human error (differentiating true error from abject negligence is obviously not always so simple) will of course always occur. I agree that tort reform on a massive scale is as likely as true healthcare reform. I don't think the solution lies in the political or legal arena but rather the places where physicians practice and the relative health of those physicians hearts and minds. I thinking that it's possible to begin with the physician as the "problem" but in such a way that benefits the physician and patient. As to patients, there will always be hollow claims just as there will always be cases of abject and utterly-avoidable malpractice and abuse. Minimizing hollow claims that make it to court is of course necessary. Unfortunately, "tort reform," like "taking personality," is often code language for a no-fault policy that applies the most to those financially well positioned and the least to those with little to no financial standing. As well, it can lead to "insurance company attorneys" virtually seizing control of state supreme courts, which happened in my state of Michigan.

Thank you for your input. As said, well-stated and I will keep your points in mind.

Hi Paul and Kristoffer,

This is an exciting topic and you both provide meaningful insight with regard to the issue of tort reform. Your answers made me feel obligated to go beyond just blaming the insurance companies and the plaintiff’s bar for the current state of affairs in American courts.

I have justified blaming the insurance companies because their first instinct is to find some way not to pay ANY claims -- legitimate or not, which makes filing a lawsuit the most expeditious way to proceed whenever damages are incurred even where one has insurance against just such an eventuality. It is clear that insurance companies are in the business of collecting premiums -- not paying claims. Thus, they feel they get screwed when one of their policyholders becomes a defendant in a lawsuit and loses (even then, they make sure that the insured knows at the outset that they do not intend to pay one penny over and above “such-and-such” amount so the insured had better hire his/her own attorney to defend the case).

Of course, the plaintiff's bar is not completely innocent; and I note that neither of you seems to put the blame at their feet for the litigiousness of American society and the backlog in our courts. I would, therefore, certainly appreciate the two of you answering my RG question about the "creativity of the Plaintiff's bar", which you will find here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_the_creativity_of_the_US_Plaintiffs_Bar_a_good_thing.

Thanks,

Gwen