Is it not Time For Implementing Health Courts?

    Is the US tort system, particularly in medical malpractice cases, driven by economic considerations or ethical principles? The system is always plagued by inconsistent verdicts, leading to questions of judicial parity and fairness. Some would argue and believe the system is "rigged," meaning the odds are stacked against certain parties, and outcomes are predetermined due to this failed morality.

    One key factor influencing these outcomes is economics. Plaintiff attorneys in medical malpractice cases often prioritize cases with the potential for large financial awards ("big-ticket items"), sometimes exceeding $60,000. This focus on profitability can lead to the neglect of valid malpractice claims with smaller potential payouts ("penny cases"), denying some patients the justice they so clearly deserve.

    This economic imbalance raises concerns about the impartiality of the system, despite assurances from organizations like the American Bar Association (ABA) and the Trial Lawyers Association (ATLA). While these organizations acknowledge imperfections, they maintain the system's fundamental soundness is just...or so they tell us

    In response to these concerns, various tort reforms have been proposed, including malpractice award caps, etc. However, these measures have not proven to be a long-term solution. Another less favored proposed solution is the implementation of health courts and specialized tribunals for medical malpractice cases. While a majority of Americans support this concept, organizations like the ATLA and ABA oppose it, potentially due to concerns about their own influence. They often dismiss health courts as flawed and even harmful, sometimes associating them with "socialistic views," without providing substantial evidence of these views or unilateral assertions.

    The core issue at stake is the conflict between economic incentives and ethical considerations in the pursuit of justice. Obviously, economics are a driving force, so is no surprise our current system is perceived as favoring cases with high financial stakes, potentially denying justice to those with less lucrative claims. This author advocates for health courts as a viable solution & alternative in our judicial system to create a more equitable system, prioritizing fairness and impartiality regardless of economic or social background. The ultimate goal is to eliminate the current system's perceived contempt, unpredictability, and unfairness. Thus, health courts offer a path toward restoring integrity in our flawed and dysfunctional judicial system.