Medical Liability Reform- Pretrial Screening Panels: S.B. 214 (2005)
Created a pre-trial screening panel requiring all medical liability cases
Created a pre-trial screening panel requiring all medical liability cases go before a three person panel: a judge, an attorney & a health care practitioner of the same or similar specialty as the defendant. SB 214 does not restrict anyone’s right to a jury trial. The panel helps plaintiffs with smaller cases because panel expenses are less. SB 214 required the panel to decide negligence based on a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not), thus encouraging the dropping of non-meritorious cases or quicker settlement of meritorious cases. Only unanimous decisions by the panel are admissible in any future trial. S.B. 214 also created a legislative oversight committee that will look at data over the next few years to determine if the new panel system is working. The bill required liability insurers to report certain data to the New Hampshire Department of Insurance annually.
Latest News
View all news
Trial Lawyers’ Rush Amendment Passes IL House in Early Morning Hours, Heads to Governor
ATRA’s statement on passage of Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
IL Lawmakers Rush to Amend Bill for Trial Lawyers’ Gain, Ignore COVID-19 Liability Protections
ATRA’s statement on Amendment 1 to Illinois House Bill 3360
Statement Concerning Violent Mob Attack on U.S. Capitol
ATRA President Tiger Joyce released the following statement in response to the unprecedented attack on the U.S. Capitol building on January 6:
Congress Fails to Protect Small Businesses & Others from COVID-19 Liability
ATRA voices its disappointment as Congress fails to include liability protections in its latest COVID-19 relief package.
Courts in ‘Judicial Hellholes’ Less Likely to Abide by SCOTUS Precedent
ATRA President Tiger Joyce writes in this op-ed about a growing trend of state courts bucking SCOTUS precedent when it comes to personal jurisdiction.
Minnesota Slides Into ‘Judicial Hellholes’ Ranks Yet Again
Activism in AG’s office, Supreme Court’s acceptance of lawsuit funding and loose venue rules to blame