Jurors and Medical Malpractice


A recent study conducted by Philip Peters Jr., of the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, found that juries are more likely to side with doctors in medical malpractice cases.

The study shows that juries tend to be skeptical of people and their lawyers who sue their doctors and that most medical malpractice trials result in a verdict for the medical doctors.

Peters concluded that juries treat doctors favorably, “perhaps unfairly so,” and are even more likely than fellow physicians to defer to a doctor’s opinion and testimony.

Peters’ study found that most medical malpractice suits are decided in favor of the health care provider and that the cases that go to trial tend to be the weakest ones, since those with strong evidence usually settle before trial. In an examination of plaintiffs’ win rates in New Jersey, North Carolina, Florida and Michigan, Peters found that only 27% to 30% of the medical malpractice suits which are filed end in a plaintiff’s verdict, which is the lowest success rate of any type of tort litigation.

This does not mean, however, that people who feel they are victims of medical malpractice should do nothing. Despite the less than encouraging percentages Mr. Peters found in his study, the lawyers at the Louthian Law Firm have been successful in utilizing experts to effectively evaluate medical malpractice claims and bring them to successful conclusion on behalf of their clients.


Comments are closed.

Contact Information