[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.163.92.62. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
May 20, 1992

Reviewing Potential Malpractice Cases-Reply

Author Affiliations

American Medical Association Chicago, Ill

JAMA. 1992;267(19):2604. doi:10.1001/jama.1992.03480190046022

This article is only available in the PDF format. Download the PDF to view the article, as well as its associated figures and tables.

Abstract

In Reply.  —Plaintiffs whose attorneys retain Dr Coyle to review an alleged medical liability case are indeed fortunate, as Dr Coyle's approach takes into account the costs that must be borne by those plaintiffs to retain an expert witness to review a claim, even where it is determined that liability does not exist. However, Dr Coyle's letter raises an important problem inherent in the current civil justice system—that of access to the system and the attendant costs of access. Plaintiffs' attorneys must hire costly medical experts to review cases and to testify in court in support of the plaintiffs allegations. Those plaintiffs who have lesser amounts of damages often cannot find an attorney to represent them, because any anticipated payment, whether by way of settlement or verdict, will be insufficient to yield an adequate contingency fee for the plaintiffs attorney and to cover the high costs of expert witness(es).In

×