Philip Peters, Jr., from the University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law, says that juries tend to believe doctors more than plaintiffs in medical malpractice cases—contrary to popular belief in the medical communities that juries usually favor plaintiffs.
He says he found that the majority of malpractice suits end in defense verdicts and that the cases with the weakest evidence are usually the ones that go to trial—since cases where there is solid evidence are usually settled beforehand.
He conducted his research to test the assumption that juries did not have the capacity to fairly assess medical malpractice claims. His reports will be published in the Michigan Law Review this May.
Peters examined numerous data, including 8,231 medical malpractice lawsuits filed in New Jersey from 1977-1992 against doctors insured by the now-defunct Medical Inter-Insurance Exchange. Results showed that a plaintiff was more likely to get a favorable verdict if there was a stronger evidence of negligence.
According to Peters, however, juries had a tendency to defer to doctors and were likely to rule in favor of the defendant in cases where the plaintiff’s evidence was weak. He also said jurors occasionally might find doctors credible because of their social status or the fact that they have better attorneys and witnesses. He also said that jurors might be skeptical about a patient that would sue their doctor.
Peters also did conclude, however, that jurors in medical malpractice claims are not incompetent and that favoritism and randomness were not factors affecting the outcome of these cases.