Mandatory Mediation: The Extra Dose Needed to Cure the Medical Malpractice Crisis

Authors

Florence Yee, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Abstract

This Note discusses the advantages and drawbacks of mandating participation in mediation in medical malpractice disputes. Part II of this Note reviews the extent of the current medical malpractice crisis. Part III examines litigation as the traditional means of resolving medical malpractice disputes and suggests that litigation's weaknesses eclipse any of its strengths. Part IV evaluates the lingering challenges to arbitration, accounting for its ineffectiveness in resolving medical malpractice disputes. Part V analyzes why mediation may be the better alternative to both litigation and arbitration in resolving such disputes, and how its hurdles can be best surmounted by mandatory mediation. Part VI reviews lessons that can be learned from mediation in practice, from mandatory "mediation" panels to the Chicago Rush Hospital apology-based mediation model. Finally, Part VII concludes that mandating mediation may be the radical overhaul that the traditional system requires to emerge from the current medical malpractice crisis.

Disciplines

Dispute Resolution and Arbitration | Labor and Employment Law | Law | Legal Remedies | Medical Jurisprudence | Torts

Recommended Citation

Florence Yee, Mandatory Mediation: The Extra Dose Needed to Cure the Medical Malpractice Crisis, 7 Cardozo J. Conflict Resol. 393 (2006).
Available at: https://larc.cardozo.yu.edu/cjcr/vol7/iss2/11