TortsProf Blog

Editor: Christopher J. Robinette
Widener Commonwealth Law School

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Med Mal: Torts v. Contracts

Jennifer Arlen (NYU) has posted to SSRN a new paper, "Contracting over Malpractice Liability," discussing the recent trend towards advocating for a contractual resolution of medical malpractice rather than a tort one.  The abstract:

Proponents of contractual liability assert that contracting is superior to malpractice because patients will select the rules that maximize their welfare so long as contracting is voluntary and the parties correctly estimate the costs and benefits of imposing liability. This article analyzes the claim that patients have optimal incentives to contract into liability when they are informed about the consequences of liability. It shows that contractual liability is inefficient, even when patients are informed, because contracting itself is not an optimal mechanism for imposing liability because patients derive less benefit from imposing liability by contract than they could obtain from liability imposed by the state by fiat. Specifically, this article examines the two plausibly-efficient forms of contractual liability: individual negotiable contractual liability and MCO contractual liability. It shows that neither provides patients with sufficient benefits to induce optimal contracting over liability.

Patients engaged in individual negotiated contracting with medical providers at the point of service do not have optimal incentives either to adopt malpractice liability reforms or contract around reforms adopted by the state because malpractice liability is designed to confer collective, multi-period, benefits on patients - in the form of investments in safety that benefit many patients collectively both now and in the future. Patients do not derive the full benefit of the collective, multi-period investments produced by malpractice liability when required to impose it through individual contracts. Accordingly, even when contracting is informed and voluntary, patients can be harmed by the introduction of contractual liability because it provides incentives for them to reject liability even when they would be better off were liability imposed by the state. By contrast, collective non-negotiable contracting between patients and Managed Care Organizations) does not face as serious a collective goods problem. But this form of contracting is inefficient because it is distorted by adverse selection. MCOs will charge patients more for liability than is optimal because patients' demand for liability provides a signal of their expected demand for expensive medical services since liability confers the greatest expected benefits on patients likely to need hospital care. Accordingly, contractual liability will not induce even informed patients to impose liability whenever they would be better off were it imposed. Thus, we cannot be confident that states could better serve patients by allowing contracting over liability than they could by adopting effective reforms to malpractice liability and leaving it within the control of the tort system.


Legislation, Reforms, & Political News | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Med Mal: Torts v. Contracts:


This is painful, but I agree with this lawyer. Justice demands a mutuality of remedy. Contractual approaches are unconscionable if the offeree is in pain.

The doctor should be permitted to sue the plaintiff and the plaintiff rent seeking lawyer. Most medmal cases are weak. The filing of a weak case is legal malpractice. The privity obstacle to the legal malpractice claim of the adverse third party prevents the salutory effect of lawsuits on the lawyer profession. Indeed all lawyer self-dealt immunities should end as violations of due process, and state constitutional articles mandating access to the court. I include the immunity of the biased, pro-litigation lawyer on the bench. These are the root cause of the medmal crisis, by permitting the weak case to proceed unjustly. Deter them.

These immunities morally and intellectually justify self-help remedies against the unjust rent seeking lawyer.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Mar 16, 2008 12:39:22 PM

Post a comment