Thursday, September 20, 2007

Medical Malpractice Claims Paid by State

The Kaiser Foundation maintains a web site,, where it lists medical malpractice claims paid, by state for 2007. The data is presented for easy comparison, and can be sorted by state, or by number of claims paid, or number of paid claims per 1,000 active, non-federal physicians. The data is updated for 2007 as of June 30, 2007.

Link to the site at

Monday, September 10, 2007

Upcoming Trial to Test Illinois Medical Malpractice Caps

A St. Louis Post-Dispatch article nicely summarizes some of the effects attributed to medical malpractice reform in Illinois over the past two years, and whether caps on damages will stand in upcoming trial.

The article (At 2-year anniversary, Illinois' malpractice law nears first court challenge) states, "Later this month, the law will be tested before a Cook County judge. The question before the court will be whether caps on the damages for pain and suffering in a malpractice lawsuit are constitutional."

All eyes will be on Chicago lawyer, Jeffrey Goldberg, who will challenge the caps "on behalf of an infant who was born with severe brain damage. Goldberg alleges a botched delivery and argues the caps simply don't allow a jury to award enough money." Read full story...

Here is a link where you can listen to an NPR segment on the case and related tort reform in Illinois (from February).

Monday, September 3, 2007

$70.8 Million Med-Mal Verdict Stands in NJ

Pellicer v. St. Barnabas Hospital, A-1472-05: A New Jersey state appeals court has refused to disturb a $70.8 million medical malpractice award to the family of a brain-damaged infant, ruling it was not excessive in light of the injuries.

According to this report by Michael Booth or the New Jersey Law Journal,

"The court had refused to permit the New Jersey Hospital Association to join the case as amicus. The association had sought to argue that the $50 million pain-and-suffering component would set a dangerous benchmark and threaten hospitals' finances. ...Instead, the three-judge panel chose to confine its analysis to the facts at hand, finding that courts should not interfere with a jury award unless it was shocking."
Read more here...