Fault and medical malpractice
Moving from Massachussetts to Michigan reduced my car insurance premiums by about 50%. There are two reasons for that. First, Bostonians are absolutely terrifying drivers. Secondly, Michigan is a no-fault state.
The theory behind no fault insurance is simple. It doesn’t matter who caused the accident. Your car insurance company pays your medical care, lost wages, and other damages. There aren’t a whole lot of questions to ask—so the system is very efficient to administer. And the insurance companies don’t constantly have to sue eachother to fight over whose client is to blame. (In Michigan, there is are limited cases where you can sue somebody who injures you while driving—but you have to be pretty seriously injured.)
Could the same theory work in medical malpractice? Even good doctors make errors. Limiting malpractice means the people injured can never be compensated. At the same time, a malpractice suit can be extremely rough on the doctor. Furthermore, doctors are frequently unable to apologize or admit any fault for fear of a lawsuit—which makes the injured patient or grieving family even more likely to sue.
For those versed in legalese, can we strongly cap pain and suffering and other consequential damages but impose strict liability for medical injury? We can continue to allow a standard malpractice suit for gross negligence to allow suits in cases where the wrong leg is amputated.
