Understanding Medical Malpractice Arbitration vs. Going to Court

By Ben Gobel on November 29, 2024

Medical malpractice cases in Pennsylvania are complex, requiring extensive legal skills and resources and a deep understanding of both the medical field and state-specific laws. Victims of medical negligence have two key avenues to seek compensation: arbitration and the traditional court system. An experienced medical malpractice lawyer in Pittsburgh can explain to you the distinctions between them and help you choose the right legal strategy for your medical malpractice case.

Arbitration vs. Court in Medical Malpractice: Key Differences

In medical malpractice cases, arbitration and court litigation operate under distinct frameworks. Here’s how they compare:

Arbitration

Arbitration is a private form of dispute resolution in which both parties agree to submit their case to an arbitrator or a panel of arbitrators instead of going to trial. It is less formal than court litigation but still binding and legally enforceable.

Key Features of Arbitration

• Privacy: Arbitration hearings are confidential, meaning they are not open to the public. This can be appealing to individuals or institutions looking to keep sensitive information private.
• Speed: Arbitration is typically faster than traditional court proceedings. Without the backlog of court cases, an arbitration case can be heard and resolved in months rather than years.
• Arbitrator Selection: Both parties usually have a say in selecting the arbitrator(s), often individuals with expertise in the legal or medical field.
• Less Expensive: Arbitration is generally less costly than a full trial due to fewer procedural requirements and shorter timelines.
• Binding Decision: Once the arbitrator reaches a decision, the arbitration agreement is usually final, and the opportunity to appeal is minimal.

Potential Limitations of Arbitration

• Limited Discovery: Arbitration may involve limited discovery compared to court cases. This can restrict the amount of evidence either side can obtain to build their medical malpractice claims.
• No Jury: In arbitration, there is no jury; instead, the arbitrator or panel decides the outcome. Some plaintiffs prefer the opportunity to present their case to a jury, believing that juries may be more sympathetic to injured individuals than arbitrators.
• Potential Bias: Because many arbitrators work regularly in specific industries, there may be concerns about bias or a perceived lack of neutrality, mainly if the healthcare provider periodically engages with certain arbitrators.

Court Litigation

Litigation in the traditional court system involves filing a lawsuit in civil court and going through a formal legal process that can lead to a trial.

Key Features of Litigation

• Complete Discovery: In a medical malpractice lawsuit, both parties can use full discovery procedures, including depositions, subpoenas, and interrogatories, to gather evidence.
• Jury Trial: In a medical malpractice claim, plaintiffs typically have the right to a jury trial, allowing them to present their case to a panel of their peers.
• Public Record: Court proceedings are part of the public record, making medical malpractice case outcomes accessible to the public. This can serve as a form of accountability but may be undesirable for those who value privacy.
• Appeals: If one party is dissatisfied with the outcome of medical malpractice lawsuits, they have the right to appeal the decision to a higher court, providing an additional layer of legal review.

Potential Limitations

• Time-Consuming: Litigation can take years to resolve, especially if the case is appealed. The trial process under medical malpractice law is long and may involve multiple hearings, motions, and procedural delays.
• Cost: The costs associated with taking medical malpractice disputes to trial are significant, involving court fees, expert witnesses, and attorney expenses.
• Emotional Toll: The litigation process can be emotionally exhausting for plaintiffs. Public scrutiny, prolonged legal battles, and multiple court appearances can be overwhelming.

Arbitration in Pennsylvania Medical Malpractice Cases

Is Arbitration Mandatory in Pennsylvania?

In Pennsylvania, arbitration is not typically mandatory for medical malpractice cases. However, some healthcare providers may include arbitration clauses in their agreements with patients, requiring any disputes to be resolved through arbitration rather than litigation. These clauses are often buried in the fine print of consent forms or admission agreements.

Courts in Pennsylvania enforce arbitration agreements as long as they meet specific legal requirements. However, some courts have found arbitration clauses to be “unconscionable” or unenforceable if the patient was not adequately informed or the terms were particularly one-sided.

Pennsylvania’s Medical Care Availability and Reduction of Error (MCARE) Act

Pennsylvania law governing medical malpractice is framed by the MCARE Act, which was enacted to compensate patients injured by medical negligence while simultaneously protecting healthcare providers from frivolous lawsuits. Arbitration is generally encouraged under this law to settle disputes more efficiently, but the decision to pursue arbitration is still largely in the hands of the parties involved.

Benefits of Arbitration in Medical Malpractice Cases

• Faster Resolution: Medical malpractice cases may involve extensive expert testimony and lengthy court proceedings. Arbitration can dramatically shorten this process by skipping pretrial procedures and moving directly to a hearing.
• Reduced Costs: Arbitration in legal disputes typically involves fewer procedural hurdles and may not require as many expert witnesses, which reduces legal fees and other related costs.
• Expert Arbitrators: In medical malpractice arbitration, arbitrators usually have specialized knowledge of medical issues, which can make the process more efficient and informed than a jury trial where jurors may not understand complex medical testimony.
• Confidentiality: Since medical malpractice court cases can involve highly personal information, the private nature of arbitration is appealing to many plaintiffs and healthcare providers alike.

Why Do Some Plaintiffs Prefer Going to Court?

Despite the perceived benefits of arbitration, some plaintiffs prefer to go to court. This is generally due to the belief that juries may be more sympathetic to their claims, mainly if the case involves egregious medical errors. Moreover, the complete discovery process available in litigation allows for more thorough evidence collection, which can be critical in proving medical malpractice.

Moreover, Pennsylvania juries have historically awarded large sums in medical malpractice cases, making litigation a potentially powerful avenue for injured patients. Seasoned medical malpractice attorneys may achieve multi-million dollar verdicts in some high-profile malpractice cases in Pennsylvania.

Choosing Between Arbitration and Litigation

The decision between alternative dispute resolution and going to court in a medical malpractice case should be made in consultation with an experienced attorney. Factors to consider include:

• Strength of the Case: Cases with solid evidence and apparent negligence may benefit from the transparency of a court trial, whereas more complex or borderline cases might be resolved more efficiently through arbitration.
• Speed of Resolution: Arbitration may be more suitable for plaintiffs looking for a quicker resolution and lower costs.
• Privacy Concerns: If confidentiality is a crucial concern, arbitration might be the best option due to its private nature.
• Risk Tolerance: Arbitration decisions are final and binding with limited appeal rights. Plaintiffs who want to preserve the option to appeal might prefer litigation.

Get Our Highly Rated Medical Malpractice Lawyers in Pittsburgh on Your Side

If you or a loved one has been harmed due to medical negligence, trust the experienced trial lawyers at Ogg, Murphy & Perkosky to fight for the justice and compensation you need. With a proven record of over $250 million recovered for our clients and decades of experience in achieving life-changing settlements and verdicts, including $16 million, $7.2 million, and $6.1 million in medical malpractice cases, we are firmly positioned to take on powerful hospitals and insurance companies. Reach out to our Pittsburgh medical malpractice attorneys who have been fighting for Western Pennsylvanians since 1983. We accept cases on a contingency fee basis, which means you don’t pay anything until we win. To schedule your free consultation, call us at (412) 203-8159 or contact us online.