Table of contents:
Overview of Medical Malpractice Law in Philadelphia
Medical malpractice occurs when a healthcare professional’s negligence causes harm to a patient. In Philadelphia, medical malpractice is defined as any act or omission by a healthcare provider that deviates from the accepted standard of care and results in injury to the patient.
To prove medical malpractice in Philadelphia, the plaintiff must establish the following elements:
- The healthcare provider owed the patient a duty of care.
- The healthcare provider breached the duty of care.
- The breach of duty caused the patient’s injuries.
- The patient suffered damages as a result of the injuries.
The statute of limitations for filing a medical malpractice claim in Philadelphia is two years from the date of the injury. However, there are some exceptions to this rule. For example, the statute of limitations may be tolled if the patient is a minor or if the healthcare provider fraudulently concealed the injury.
Alternative Dispute Resolution in Medical Malpractice Cases
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods offer an alternative to traditional litigation for resolving medical malpractice claims in Philadelphia. These methods can provide a faster, more cost-effective, and less adversarial way to reach a resolution.
The most common ADR methods used in medical malpractice cases are mediation and arbitration. Mediation involves a neutral third party who helps the parties negotiate a settlement. Arbitration involves a neutral third party who makes a binding decision on the case.
Mediation
Mediation is a voluntary process in which the parties meet with a neutral mediator to discuss the case and try to reach a settlement. The mediator does not make a decision on the case, but rather helps the parties communicate and negotiate. Mediation is often successful in resolving medical malpractice claims because it allows the parties to have a more direct and personal involvement in the process.
Arbitration
Arbitration is a binding process in which the parties present their case to a neutral arbitrator who makes a decision on the case. The arbitrator’s decision is final and binding on the parties. Arbitration is often faster and less expensive than litigation, but it also gives the parties less control over the process.
Advantages and Disadvantages of ADR
The advantages of ADR include:
- Faster and less expensive than litigation
- More private and confidential than litigation
- Allows the parties to have more control over the process
The disadvantages of ADR include:
- May not be appropriate for all cases
- Can be less adversarial than litigation
- May not result in a settlement that is as favorable as litigation
Statistics on the Use of ADR in Medical Malpractice Cases in Philadelphia
According to a study by the American Health Lawyers Association, ADR is used in approximately 50% of medical malpractice cases in Philadelphia. The most common ADR method used is mediation, followed by arbitration.
