The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark The Legal Examiner Mark search twitter facebook feed linkedin instagram google-plus avvo phone envelope checkmark mail-reply spinner error close
Skip to main content

Recently, the Minneapolis Tribune republished a diatribe from Philip K. Howard about the need for medical malpractice reform. It was previously in the New York Times and some other papers have picked it up. It argues of all the horrors of the system that the members of the Injuryboard have been dispelling for some time. The piece is based on faulty statistics and even faultier logic. It also seems to forget that people are really hurt badly in these cases.

The idea is based upon the creation of specialty medical courts. To take decisions out of jurors hands and create a whole separate system. Forget about the problems with paying for an additional system. But where is the evidence that it is needed or would even make a difference?

In Minnesota we have a good solid system. The affidavit rule requires a case to have affirmed medical support before it can go forward. The numbers show that malpractice premiums are low in the state. The number of cases are small.

I guess he can turn around and come up with some fantasy state that the article is aimed at. But the reality is that Minnesota isn’t one of them.

Comments are closed.

Of Interest