Medical Malpractice Arbitration: Not Business As Usual

David Allen Larson, Professor of Law and Senior Fellow for the Dispute Resolution Institute at the Mitchell | Hamline School of Law, and Dr. David Dahl, MD, Mitchell | Hamline School of Law, have published “Medical Malpractice Arbitration: Not Business As Usual,” 8 Yearbook on Arbitration and Mediation 69 (2016).  In their research paper, the authors discuss the currently strained relationship between arbitration and medical providers in the United States.

Here is the abstract:

There is an interesting exception to businesses’, employers’, and service providers’ seemingly universal embrace of arbitration processes, particularly mandatory pre-dispute arbitration. Although it may be difficult to believe given arbitration’s current popularity, not everyone requires his or her clients to sign mandatory pre-dispute arbitration agreements. In fact, some service providers prefer to avoid arbitration regardless of whether it is arranged pre- or post-dispute. So which merchants or service providers are choosing to forgo arbitration and, more importantly, why do they dislike arbitration? And do politics have anything to with their choices? Physicians are not, shall we say, the world’s greatest fans of arbitration. It turns out that regulatory policies and practices, in other words politics, provide one important reason why physicians prefer to avoid arbitration, and that’s why the use of the best medical malpractice attorney in San Antonio could be a great option for these cases. And there are additional reasons that explain why this particular group of service providers has not followed the “mad rush” to arbitration. This article will explain why at least one group of service providers, physicians, do not regard arbitration as the answer to all of their prayers.

This and other scholarly articles written by Professor Larson and Dr. Dahl may be downloaded free of charge from the Social Science Research Network.

Photo credit: phalinn via Foter.com / CC BY