How effective are the laws of medical malpractice in Hawaii? An analysis of Hawaii's Medical Claims Conciliation Panel.

摘要

The medical malpractice crises of the mid-1970's and mid-1980's are taken as the starting point for an inquiry into the effectiveness of medical tort reforms in Hawaii.; It was found that during the 1970's and 1980's, the frequency and severity of medical malpractice claims in Hawaii mere not at 'crises' levels and by themselves are insufficient justification for the proposed tort reforms. Rather, it is argued that the Hawaii 'crises' were the result of the displacement of risks associated with high claims frequency and severity prevalent in mainland settings to Hawaii. Furthermore, it is suggested that the Hawaii medical malpractice crises mere part of a repricing strategy by insurers to maintain profitability.; The presumed intent of medical malpractice tort laws is to provide just compensation for the injured and to serve as a deterrent effect on errant physicians. However, Hawaii's response to the medical malpractice 'crises' adopted an industry initiated 'efficient insurance model' that differentially rewarded insurance companies at the expense of the medically injured litigants by limiting their access to courts and placing limitations on their compensation.; Many positions critical to capitalists have long held that laws support the economic interests of the dominant class in society. Consistent with Richard Quinney's position, the dissertation finds that laws usually represent the interest of special groups rather than the more general interests of society as a whole. The medical tort reforms in Hawaii clearly are the case in point.