To the Editor.
—I wish to comment on, as well as take exception to, some of the data in the article by Kraushar and Turner.1 In a group with identical numbers of claims in Louisiana, which were reviewed by a medical review panel, approximately 85% were decided in favor of the health care provider. However, in New Jersey, in a study of 40 cataract claims, only 50% were judged defensible by peer reviewers. The peer review process appears to be effective in decreasing the total cost to society of tort awards by encouraging the prompt settlement of meritorious claims and the abandonment of frivolous ones. In this regard, New Jersey physicians might be interested in why the peer review process in Louisiana is more often decided in favor of the defendant.I agree with the authors' summation that good patient rapport, as well as the recognition of a complication
Insler MS. Malpractice Litigation and Cataract Surgery. Arch Ophthalmol. 1988;106(2):166. doi:10.1001/archopht.1988.01060130176007
Browse and subscribe to JAMA Network podcasts!
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: