Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues.
J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008 Aug; 33(4):761-98.JH

Abstract

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Yale Law School, USA.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18617674

Citation

Elliott, E Donald, et al. "Administrative "health Courts" for Medical Injury Claims: the Federal Constitutional Issues." Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, vol. 33, no. 4, 2008, pp. 761-98.
Elliott ED, Narayan SA, Nasmith MS. Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008;33(4):761-98.
Elliott, E. D., Narayan, S. A., & Nasmith, M. S. (2008). Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 33(4), 761-98. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-2008-015
Elliott ED, Narayan SA, Nasmith MS. Administrative "health Courts" for Medical Injury Claims: the Federal Constitutional Issues. J Health Polit Policy Law. 2008;33(4):761-98. PubMed PMID: 18617674.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues. AU - Elliott,E Donald, AU - Narayan,Sanjay A, AU - Nasmith,Moneen S, PY - 2008/7/12/pubmed PY - 2008/11/14/medline PY - 2008/7/12/entrez SP - 761 EP - 98 JF - Journal of health politics, policy and law JO - J Health Polit Policy Law VL - 33 IS - 4 N2 - Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers. SN - 0361-6878 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18617674/Administrative_"health_courts"_for_medical_injury_claims:_the_federal_constitutional_issues_ L2 - https://read.dukeupress.edu/jhppl/article-lookup/doi/10.1215/03616878-2008-015 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -