The following letter was published in the June 27, 2005 issue of Crain's Cleveland Business, pp. 10 & 11, titled "Arbitration an Option for Malpractice Claims"

Letter to the editor of Crain's

Dear Editor:

I read with interest the article entitled "Firms feeling the effects as law limits malpractice cases." As a physician, I must admit that while I am not concerned about the livelihood of a malpractice attorney, the article leaves the reader with the impression that patients may not have an opportunity to have their issues evaluated and heard. This clearly illustrates why such a distrust of the current legal process exists and why the system itself is broken.

Data has shown that Northeastern Ohio physicians experience higher liability insurance premiums than in many other states. The trend of ever-increasing premiums over the last few years is not indicative of the level of medical care patients receive from our physicians and hospitals. We believe the primary contributing factors to this situation have been the proliferation of meritless lawsuits filed against physicians and, most importantly, by the rapidly escalating costs associated with excessive jury awards, settlements and the defense of these suits. 

Over time, a growing mistrust of the legal system has completely changed the practice of medicine. This mistrust is the direct result of a legal system that allows for completely unreliable and inconsistent verdicts. The legal system is not only inconsistent; it is uneconomical, racking up legal expenses for both sides. In addition, lawsuits have been known to drag on for years, causing emotional stress, damage to reputation and financial loss. 

The medical liability crisis is still an issue and will continue to be so until the system is changed. A survey recently reported by the Ohio Department of Insurance clearly shows that the medical liability crisis has not abated - physicians are still reducing their services to patients, especially those in high-risk specialties, while others have simply retired from practice. Physicians across the state agree that we need some form of alternative dispute resolution mechanism. We need an alternative to the court system and we need it now.

The Academy of Medicine of Cleveland/Northern Ohio Medical Association (AMC/NOMA) supports the implementation of such an alternative - mandatory arbitration for medical liability cases. This concept (SB 88) is currently under review in the Ohio Senate. Compared to a traditional trial, arbitration can be completed quickly and less formally. The process allows the parties to gauge how others view the case and assist the parties in arriving at a settlement agreement more quickly. Arbitration has many positive aspects, such as relieving the backlog of cases pending in courts, cost effectiveness, flexibility entering into the process, and decreasing the time it would take to resolve a matter. It has been shown to cost less, result in more predictable awards, and is much less intimidating and emotional. We believe that this legislation will result in a win-win situation. It requires that a balanced panel, selected by both sides, consider the evidence in any medical liability dispute and render a decision in a much less expensive setting than open court. If both parties accept the decision, that's the end of it. The majority of cases probably won't get past this stage. The few cases in which parties don't agree can then go to court and present their evidence in a trial, including the arbitration panel's decision. This protects everyone's rights. 

Creating an alternative dispute resolution process such as arbitration is a viable alternative to the current system, but one that has already been opposed by trial lawyers, for whom the unreliability of the current system is an advantage. Patients would like to have a system that would hold doctors accountable if a mistake occurs, and in turn doctors want a system that will protect them when they are inappropriately accused. The AMC/NOMA, the physicians of Northeastern Ohio, the citizens of Ohio and the civil justice system need relief, and this legislation would provide a process that could assist in bringing medical negligence cases to a quicker resolution in a more cost-effective manner. It is presented as a neutral and informal suggestion for improving the overall quality of how alleged medical negligence cases are resolved. So we encourage everyone to get behind SB 88. It offers an innovative approach to mending the system. 

Sincerely,

George E. Kikano, M.D.
President, AMC/NOMA