It is easier to confuse a jury than convince a judge: the crisis in medical malpractice.

STUDY DESIGN: A study of cervical spine malpractice cases was conducted. Identifying tort reform models may help to resolve a crisis in medical malpractice.

OBJECTIVE: To identify tort reform models that may help to resolve a crisis in medical malpractice.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Medical malpractice faces a crisis. Insurance rates are exorbitant, yet many injured patients go uncompensated. Physicians practice defensive medicine for fear of suits, and society pays the price.

METHODS: Using, 36 malpractice cases involving cervical spine surgery were identified: 20 from California ($250,000 cap on pain and suffering) and 16 from New York ("the sky's the limit"). Queries included who sued, who was sued, who won, who lost, and why? Six different tort reform models also were identified and explored.

RESULTS: Common bases for suits included failure to diagnose and treatment (56%), lack of informed consent (64%), new neurologic deficits (64%), and pain and suffering (72%). All of the six plaintiff verdicts (average, $4.42 million) and four of the nine settlements (average, $1.6 million) involving surgery that resulted in new postoperative quadriplegia appeared to be appropriate. However, the author could discern "no fault" in cases five defendants had settled, and the surgeons did not deserve to lose. On the other hand, the author found "fault" in five defense verdicts rendered to three newly quadriplegic patients and two with new postoperative root injuries. These patients deserved monetary awards, but received no compensation whatsoever. There currently are two models that would work better than the system in place in most states. These include the American Medical Association National Specialty Societies Medical Liability Project with the Alternative Dispute Resolution Model (SSMLP), and the Selective No Fault Models. Among the advantages shared by one or more of these models is their ability to reimburse injured patients while eliminating physician liability, to use malpractice panels rather than trials, and to put a cap on damages.

CONCLUSIONS: To solve the medical malpractice crisis, Congress, the individual states, or both should adopt tort reform. Two tort reform models compensating injured patients and eliminating physician liability appear to be not only effective but also fair to all concerned parties.