Keuringspanele ("Screening Panels") as Gepaste Geskilbeslegtingsmetode ter Oplossing van Mediese Wanpraktyks-geskille.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2009/v12i3a2735Abstract
A right only has any value if there is a remedy providing for the acknowledgement and enforcement thereof. An increase in medical malpractice claims can be expected in South Africa in view of the fact that the public is becoming more and more aware of its rights in respect of health services and health care. The public opinion calls for development of dispute resolution proceedings. The fact that the law is not accessible to everyone in South Africa is a matter of concern. High litigation costs, coupled with the time consuming protracted, formal and complicated process, call for a transformation towards an alternative, non-judicial process that is suitable for a particular dispute and apposite to the parties involved. Selection panels, the medical ombudsperson and arbitration clauses incorporated in doctor/patient agreements, are ADR mechanisms that have been proved by American law as suitable for resolution of medical malpractice claims. In this particular article attention is paid to screening panels as pre-trial mechanism with the exclusive purpose to select malpractice disputes, discourage unfounded disputes and to encourage an early settlement in case of a prima facie case.
Several objections have been raised by critics in this regard, for instance, a screening panel infringes on: the right of equal protection/the right of access to the courts/the right to a jury trial/the right to a due process as well as on the trias politica doctrine. These so-called infringements are attended to and eventually a positive conclusion regarding screening panels is made: medical screening panels (consisting generally of a medical doctor, a lawyer and a member of public), based on the American experience, is indeed an appropriate dispute resolution method.
Downloads
References
Bibliografie
Anon 1972 William and Mary Law Review 704
Anon 1972
Anthony 1936 New England Journal of Medicine
Anthony FW "The medical, legal and ethical connection by physicians with cases of malpractice which have no criminal factors" 1936 New England Journal of Medicine 115-118
Averbach 1956 Insurance Law Journal
Averbach R "Aids for the improvement of the doctor-lawyer relationship"
Insurance Law Journal 237-245
Baird Alternatives to Litigation
Baird B Alternatives to Litigation 1: Technical Analysis in US Department of
Health, Education and Welfare Report of the Secretary's Commission on Medical Malpractice (Appendix) Pub No (OS) 73-89 224-227 (1973)
Boyle 1981 University of Pittsburg Law Review
Boyle R "Medical malpractice screening panels: a judicial evaluation of their practical effect" 1981 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 939-960
Braverman 1978 Fordham LR
Braverman P "Wrongful conception: who pays for bringing up baby?" 1978 Fordham Law Review 418-436
Crous 1996 THRHR
Crous AJ "Die beslegtingsproblematiek van mediese wanpraktyksgeskille"
Tydskrif vir Hedendaagse Romeins-Hollandse Reg 219-232
Crous Beslegtingsproblematiek
Crous AJ Die beslegtingsproblematiek in geval van mediese wanpraktyksgeskille met spesifieke verwysing na die "action for wrongful conception" en die "ADR"-proses (LLD proefskrif PU vir CHO 2002) Goldschmidt 1991 Arizona State Law Journal
Goldschmidt J " Where have all the panels gone? A history of the Arizona
Medical Liability Review Panel" 1991 Arizona State Law Journal 1013-1109
Macchiaroli 1990 George Washington LR
Macchiaroli JA "Medical malpractice screening panels: proposed model legislation to cure judicial ills" 1990 The George Washington Law Review 181-260
Pretorius Dispute resolution
Pretorius P Dispute resolution (Juta Kaapstad 1993)
Sadusk 1958 JAMA
Sadusk JF "Expert witness and advisory panels" 1958 Journal of the American Medical Association 2121-2123
Sake MJ "Medical malpractice: facing real problems and finding real solutions"
William and Mary Law Review 693-76
Sands 1939 New York State Journal of Medicine
Sands IJ "Doctors lawyers and injured brains" 1939 New York State Journal of Medicine 2161-2169
Shindell 1953 JAMA
Shindell S "Medicine vs Law: A proposal for settlement" 1953 Journal of the American Medical Association 1078-1080
Strauss Doctor, patient and the law
Strauss SA Doctor, patient and the law (Van Schaik Pretoria 1979)
Trollip Alternative dispute resolution
Trollip AT Alternative dispute resolution in a contemporary South African context (Butterworths Durban 1991)
HEW Report
US Department of Health Education and Welfare Report of the Secretary's
Commission on Medical Malpractice Pub No (OS) 73-89 (1973)
Ury, Brett en Goldberg Getting disputes resolved
Ury WL, Brett JM en Goldberg SB Getting disputes resolved, designing systems to cut the costs of conflict (Jossey-Bass Publishers San Francisco 1986)
Willenborg 1954 Ohio State Law Journal
Willenborg EF "Law and medicine: a report on interprofessional relations"
Ohio State Law Journal 453-457
Zeisel 1956 Stanford Law Review
Zeisel H "The New York Expert Testimony Project: some reflections on legal experiments" 1956 Stanford Law Review 730-748
Register van wetgewing
Wet op Geneeshere, Tandartse en Aanvullende Gesondheidsberoepe 56 van
Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika 1996
Medical Malpractice Act 1976 (VSA)
Register van hofsake
Aldana v Holub 381 So 2d 231 (Fla 1980)
Attorney General v Johnson 282 Md 274 A 2d 57 appeal dismissed 439 US
(1978)
Beatty v Akron City Hospital 67 Ohio St 2d 483 NE 2d 586 (1981)
Bernier v Burris 113 Ill 2d 219 497 NE 2d 763 (1986)
Boddie v Connecticut 401 US 371 (1971)
Boucher v Sayeed 459 A 2d 87 93 (RI 1983)
Cardinal Glennon Memorial Hospital v Gaertner 583 SW 2d 107 (Mo 1979)
Carter v Sparkham 335 So 2d 802 (Fla 1976) cert denied 429 US 1041 (1977)
Christiansen v Connell 2 Ill 2d 332 118 NE 2d 262 (1954)
Comiskey v Arlen 55 AD 2d 304 NY S 2d 122 (NY App Div 1976)
Curtis v Loether 415 US 189 (1974)
Eastin v Broomfield 116 Ariz 576 P 2d 754 (1977)
Everett v Goldman 359 So 2d 1256 (La 1978)
Ex Parte Peterson 253 US 300 (1920)
Firelock Inc v District Ct 766 P 2d 1090 (Colo 1989)
Gist v French 288 P 2d 1003 (Cal Ct App 1955)
Guill v Major of Hoboken 21 NJ 574 122 A 2d 881 (1956)
Heller v Frankston 504 Pa 528 475 A 2d 1291 (1984)
Hoem v State 756 P 2d 780 (Wyo 1988)
Huffman v Lindquist 234 P 2d 34 (Cal 1951)
Jiron v Mahlab 99 NM 425 659 P 2d 311 (1983)
Johnson v St Vincent Hospital 273 Ind 374 404 NE 2d 585 (1980)
Jones v State Board of Medicine 97 Idaho 859 555 P 2d 399 (1976) cert denied
US 914 (1977)
Keyes v Humana Hospital Alaska 750 P 2d 343 (Alaska 1988)
Lacy v Green 428 A 2d 1171 (Del Super Ct 1981)
Linder v Smith 629 P 2d 1187 (Mont 1981)
Mattos v Thompson 421 A 2d 190 (Pa 1980)
Munn v Illinois 94 US 113 (1876)
Ortwein v Schwab 410 US 656 (1973) (per curiam)
Parker v Children's Hospital 483 Pa 106 394 A 2d 932 (1978)
Paro v Longwood Hospital 373 Mass 645 369 NE 2d 985 (1977)
Perna v Pirozzi 92 NJ 446 457 A 2d 431 (1983)
Prendergast v Nelson 199 Neb 97 256 NW 2d 657 (1977)
San Antonio Independant School District v Rodriquez 411 US 1 (1973)
Seoane v Ortho Pharmaceuticals Inc 660 F 2d 146 (5th Cir 1981)
Simon v St Elizabeth Medical Center 3 Ohio Op 3d 164 355 NE 2d 903 (CP 1976)
State Ex Rel Cardinal Glennon Memoral Hospital v Gaertner 583 SW 2d 107 110 (Mo 1979)
State Ex Rel Strykowski v Wilkie 81 Wis 2d 491 261 NW 2d 434 (1978)
Treyball v Clark 65 NY 2d 589 483 NE 2d 1136 493 NY S 2d 1004 (1985)
United States v Kras 409 US 434 (1973)
Woods v Holy Cross Hospital 591 F 2d 1164 (5th Cir 1979)
Wright v Central Du Page Hospital Association 63 Ill 2d 313 347 NE 2d 736
(1976)
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2017 AJ Crous
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.