Problems with the Use of Periodic Payments in Actions against Health Care Providers

For the last quarter century, one stated goal of Section 667.7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure has been achieved: an avoidance of so-called "windfall payments" of future medical care expenses to plaintiffs who die shortly after entry of judgment. Medical malpractice insurance pro...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of legal economics 2002-04, Vol.12 (1), p.23
Main Authors: Jennings, Penelope R, Jennings, William P
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Compensation
Economic impact
Health care
Legislatures
Litigation
Medical expense insurance
Medical malpractice
Pain
Settlements & damages
State court decisions
State laws
Structured settlements
Studies
Wages & salaries
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:For the last quarter century, one stated goal of Section 667.7 of the California Code of Civil Procedure has been achieved: an avoidance of so-called "windfall payments" of future medical care expenses to plaintiffs who die shortly after entry of judgment. Medical malpractice insurance providers have benefitted and, in theory, so have their insureds. However, the other stated goal of Section 667.7, to "provide compensation sufficient to meet the needs of an injured plaintiff...for whatever period is necessary" has not and cannot be met as long as defendants can insist on periodic payment plans for future damages that cease when the plaintiff dies. As demonstrated, all plaintiffs, those who die early, those who live long after the court imposed payment stream would have ended, and those who settle the case after the verdict, are worse off.
ISSN:1054-3023