“Typical” malpractice case shows why reform is not needed

June 16, 2003

The SP Times has several articles about malpractice in today’s edition. This one relates a “typical” case that results in a verdict for the doctors.

The outcome of the case is not that unusual locally.

Maye, 44, has presided over three other malpractice trials during her two years on the civil court. Plaintiffs lost all three. Roland Lamb, the hospital’s co-counsel, says he has lost fewer than 10 of the more than 100 malpractice suits that he has argued and that have gone all the way to a verdict. Mendoza’s insurer, ProAssurance, has won defense verdicts in 29 of 36 malpractice suits so far this year in Florida.

An obvious question: if this is a typical result, why do we need tort reform? Huge jury awards are the exception, not the rule, and are invariably whittled down or overturned on appeal.

One Response to “Typical” malpractice case shows why reform is not needed

  1. reality porn reviews on July 28, 2004 at 6:25 am

    Great site, thank you for sharing it.



  • August 2019
    M T W T F S S
    « Oct