A patient has filed a $3 million medical malpractice lawsuit against St. Patrick Hospital. In light of the patient’s litigious background and the facts of the case, hospital administration is adamant that it is not liable. It has instructed its legal counsel to proceed toward trial, where it may be absolved of liability.
- What source of law is the patient’s lawsuit likely to be based on?
- Is the hospital’s decision to proceed toward trial a wise one? Why or why not?
- What other options does the hospital have?
- Besides the financial resources required to legally defend itself, what non-monetary factors must the hospital take into consideration when deciding to proceed toward trial?
- What risks does the hospital assume when it takes a case to trial?
- Is it the hospital’s or the legal counsel’s decision to try the case or settle? What decision-making authority does the hospital’s insurance company have?
Please number your responses so that I know which questions you are answering. Questions 1 and 3 probably only require one sentence. The remaining questions require a few sentences or a paragraph! Be sure to cite your sources!
Expert Solution Preview
Introduction:
Medical malpractice lawsuits are a challenge faced by healthcare providers and hospitals. When a patient files a lawsuit, healthcare providers must be aware of the source of the lawsuit, the risks of proceeding toward trial, and the available options. In this scenario, we will explore the questions that arise in a $3 million medical malpractice lawsuit filed against St. Patrick Hospital.
1. What source of law is the patient’s lawsuit likely to be based on?
Answer: The patient’s lawsuit is likely based on tort law, specifically medical malpractice. Medical malpractice is a type of tort law that seeks to hold healthcare providers accountable for injuries caused by providing substandard care.
2. Is the hospital’s decision to proceed toward trial a wise one? Why or why not?
Answer: The hospital’s decision to proceed toward trial may not be wise, as it carries multiple risks. Trials are long, costly, and unpredictable, and a jury verdict may result in a sizable award for the plaintiff. Settlements, on the other hand, may provide the hospital with the opportunity to limit its exposure and costs. However, there may be circumstances where proceeding to trial is the better decision.
3. What other options does the hospital have?
Answer: The hospital can explore settlement negotiations with the plaintiff. Settlements can provide the hospital with the opportunity to limit its exposure and legal costs. It can also opt for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like mediation and arbitration, which can be less formal, less stressful, and less costly than trials.
4. Besides the financial resources required to legally defend itself, what non-monetary factors must the hospital take into consideration when deciding to proceed toward trial?
Answer: The hospital must take into consideration the potential damage to their reputation, loss of time and energy of hospital staff, and harm to staff morale. The Hospital may also have to spend money on expert witnesses and professional fees.
5. What risks does the hospital assume when it takes a case to trial?
Answer: When a hospital takes a case to trial, it assumes the risks of financial loss, an unfavorable jury verdict, and a damaged reputation. Additionally, trials can be time-consuming, require significant resources, and may affect staff morale.
6. Is it the hospital’s or the legal counsel’s decision to try the case or settle? What decision-making authority does the hospital’s insurance company have?
Answer: Ultimately, it is the hospital’s decision to try the case or settle. However, hospitals rely on legal counsel to provide guidance throughout the litigation process. Insurance companies may have limited decision-making authority, but they can be instrumental in providing financial resources and informing settlement negotiations.
