The Bureau of Justice Statistics has just released a new study (along with the data) of the tort activity in Federal courts. Click on the figure to see the decline in the number of tort cases decided in Federal courts. The report is just descriptive--it does not offer much in the way of analysis, but it is quite interesting nonetheless.
Check out the median med mal awards and note the spike in 2003. (Recall it is the average award that really matters to insurers).
Note also that plaintiffs receive compensation in only 28 percent of the cases.
One of my questions would be what distinguishes a given medical malpractice case that it would be heard in federal court, rather than a state court. It's typically an individual claim of personal injury, not a class action. Only very rarely is the plaintiff of a different state than the defendent. RICO predicates wouldn't apply. So why would a federal court hear the case? And could those reasons have any bearing on the numbers?
Posted by: R.J. Lehmann | August 17, 2005 at 10:17 PM
I think (not knowing for sure) that the federal cases are diversity cases between plaintiffs from one state and hospitals owned by out of state corporations or physicians from out of state. They could also be suits against civilian or military doctors employed by the United States. Some could even be against manufactures of medical devices, but I think that those might fall under products liability. I don't see these cases as being much different from state cases mostly because they will still have to use state law to decide the cases.
Posted by: Martin | August 19, 2005 at 09:38 AM