NCJ Number
100836
Journal
Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution Volume: 1 Issue: 1 Dated: (Fall 1985) Pages: 183-202
Date Published
1985
Length
20 pages
Annotation
This article examines the viability of State laws establishing mediation or arbitration panels to review medical malpractice claims in light of two constitutional issues: a possible denial of the right to trial by jury and equal protection under the laws.
Abstract
After discussing distinctions between arbitration and mediation panels, the author argues that such hearings do not violate the right to jury trial because decisions are not binding and parties may seek a trial. A review of cases from several State courts supports this conclusion. Also discussed is the opinion that a mediation or arbitration panel's findings, which are admissible evidence in many States, infringe on the right to trial by an impartial jury. The examination of equal protection issues focuses on two traditional tests: strict scrutiny and rational basis. This analysis concludes that the required use of malpractice panels should withstand an equal protection challenge until more data is available to determine if the malpractice panels are indeed serving their legislative purpose. Court decisions in Florida and Pennsylvania illustrate practical problems inherent in panel procedures along with their inability to be an effective dispute resolution forum for medical malpractice. 155 footnotes.