'The Failure of ‘Sorry’: An Empirical Evaluation of Apology Laws, Health Care, and Medical Malpractice' by Benjamin Michael
comments
As part of the effort to contain the size and frequency of medical malpractice claims, many states have adopted apology laws. These laws make apologies from physicians to patients inadmissible in any subsequent court proceedings. The basic rationale behind apology laws is that meritless malpractice claims are less likely to be filed when a physician can apologize to his or her patient without risking those statements being used in court. Through the use of a unique dataset, this article corrects several misunderstandings concerning this new generation of tort reform.
First, it shows that while apology laws may reduce the frequency and size of malpractice claims as intended, they may also have a perverse effect on patients’ propensity to litigate. If a physician knows more about whether a patient’s injury was caused by malpractice than the patient, an apology could alert the patient to that malpractice and encourage the filing of a claim.
Second, the article provides the first empirical analysis of the effect of apology laws on clinical outcomes, investigating their ability to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. Examining over 1.6 million hospital stays for heart attack patients, the article finds no evidence that apology laws reduce defensive medicine. Apology laws do not decrease the intensity of treatment received by patients. In fact, they increase the medical resources used to treat heart attack patients, consistent with an increase in defensive medicine. Based on these empirical findings, the article concludes that apology laws are not effective tort reforms and that states should look to other policies if they wish to achieve the goals of apology laws.
'Promoting and Protecting Apologetic Discourse Through Law: A Global Survey and Critique of Apology Legislation and Case Law' (2017, 7(3) Oñati Socio-Legal Series) by John C. Kleefeld
comments
The year 2016 was a milestone for the law-and-apology field, marking the thirtieth anniversary of the first general law aimed at enabling apologies for civil wrongs, introduced in Massachusetts in 1986, as well as the tenth anniversary of the Apology Act, enacted in British Columbia in 2006. The Apology Act seeks to promote apologies and apologetic discourse as an important form of out-of-court dispute resolution, chiefly by making apologetic statements inadmissible for proving liability in civil wrongs. It has served as a benchmark from which subsequent law reform efforts in Canada and abroad have been measured. In 2017, that benchmark was passed with the enactment in Hong Kong of the most ambitious apology law yet, which privileges not only statements of remorse, but also statements of facts embedded in apologies. This article summarises global apology legislation and court decisions to date. Part I considers each major jurisdiction, starting with the USA and concluding with Hong Kong. Part II draws some conclusions about where we have been and where we are going in our efforts to promote or protect apologetic discourse, including recommendations on interpreting existing laws and on drafting or redrafting apology legislation.