Medical-Malpractice Contingency-Fee Caps: A Big Victory for Florida's Voters and Tort Reformers? Maybe Not
Examines the current law as it stands on the basis of FL's Amendment 3, which limits the contingency fee percentage a lawyer can recover in a medical malpractice action, as well as the legal arguments defining the related debate. An economic analysis sheds light on the costs & benefits of h...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | University of Miami law review 2008-04, Vol.62 (3), p.913-938 |
|---|---|
| 1. Verfasser: | |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 938 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 913 |
| container_title | University of Miami law review |
| container_volume | 62 |
| creator | Cristoforo, Michael |
| description | Examines the current law as it stands on the basis of FL's Amendment 3, which limits the contingency fee percentage a lawyer can recover in a medical malpractice action, as well as the legal arguments defining the related debate. An economic analysis sheds light on the costs & benefits of having a negotiable contingency fee by permitting a waiver, asserting that the FL Supreme Court ought to find that a waiver of rights granted by Amendment 3 is warranted. It is concluded that people are less likely to waive their Amendment 3 rights & more likely to stand by their "assigned" rights given the limits of human decision making. Adapted from the source document. |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_58776074</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>58776074</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_587760743</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNjjsOwjAQRF2AxPcOW0EVyYhPAg0CREQTCoRo0eIsyMh4g9cUuT0pOADVaN68Ylqqq_VskiyzSdZRPZGn1jqdLdKuehZUWoMuKdBVAU20hmDHPlr_IG_qJKemYyUr2MDWPuBiTeRQw50D5I6DLXEscOFIQQB9CWcOEU7U7K8GraHA-kZw5DhQ7Ts6oeEv-2qU78-7Q1IFfn9I4vVlxZBz6Ik_cp1nabpobk7_Fr92OUm_</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>58776074</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Medical-Malpractice Contingency-Fee Caps: A Big Victory for Florida's Voters and Tort Reformers? Maybe Not</title><source>HeinOnline</source><source>PAIS Index</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Cristoforo, Michael</creator><creatorcontrib>Cristoforo, Michael</creatorcontrib><description>Examines the current law as it stands on the basis of FL's Amendment 3, which limits the contingency fee percentage a lawyer can recover in a medical malpractice action, as well as the legal arguments defining the related debate. An economic analysis sheds light on the costs & benefits of having a negotiable contingency fee by permitting a waiver, asserting that the FL Supreme Court ought to find that a waiver of rights granted by Amendment 3 is warranted. It is concluded that people are less likely to waive their Amendment 3 rights & more likely to stand by their "assigned" rights given the limits of human decision making. Adapted from the source document.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0041-9818</identifier><identifier>CODEN: UMLRB5</identifier><language>eng</language><subject>Actions and defenses ; Compensation (law) ; Florida ; Insurance ; Liability ; Malpractice ; Medical profession ; Physicians</subject><ispartof>University of Miami law review, 2008-04, Vol.62 (3), p.913-938</ispartof><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27842</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cristoforo, Michael</creatorcontrib><title>Medical-Malpractice Contingency-Fee Caps: A Big Victory for Florida's Voters and Tort Reformers? Maybe Not</title><title>University of Miami law review</title><description>Examines the current law as it stands on the basis of FL's Amendment 3, which limits the contingency fee percentage a lawyer can recover in a medical malpractice action, as well as the legal arguments defining the related debate. An economic analysis sheds light on the costs & benefits of having a negotiable contingency fee by permitting a waiver, asserting that the FL Supreme Court ought to find that a waiver of rights granted by Amendment 3 is warranted. It is concluded that people are less likely to waive their Amendment 3 rights & more likely to stand by their "assigned" rights given the limits of human decision making. Adapted from the source document.</description><subject>Actions and defenses</subject><subject>Compensation (law)</subject><subject>Florida</subject><subject>Insurance</subject><subject>Liability</subject><subject>Malpractice</subject><subject>Medical profession</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><issn>0041-9818</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2008</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7TQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqNjjsOwjAQRF2AxPcOW0EVyYhPAg0CREQTCoRo0eIsyMh4g9cUuT0pOADVaN68Ylqqq_VskiyzSdZRPZGn1jqdLdKuehZUWoMuKdBVAU20hmDHPlr_IG_qJKemYyUr2MDWPuBiTeRQw50D5I6DLXEscOFIQQB9CWcOEU7U7K8GraHA-kZw5DhQ7Ts6oeEv-2qU78-7Q1IFfn9I4vVlxZBz6Ik_cp1nabpobk7_Fr92OUm_</recordid><startdate>20080401</startdate><enddate>20080401</enddate><creator>Cristoforo, Michael</creator><scope>7TQ</scope><scope>DHY</scope><scope>DON</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20080401</creationdate><title>Medical-Malpractice Contingency-Fee Caps: A Big Victory for Florida's Voters and Tort Reformers? Maybe Not</title><author>Cristoforo, Michael</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_miscellaneous_587760743</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2008</creationdate><topic>Actions and defenses</topic><topic>Compensation (law)</topic><topic>Florida</topic><topic>Insurance</topic><topic>Liability</topic><topic>Malpractice</topic><topic>Medical profession</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cristoforo, Michael</creatorcontrib><collection>PAIS Index</collection><collection>PAIS International</collection><collection>PAIS International (Ovid)</collection><jtitle>University of Miami law review</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cristoforo, Michael</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Medical-Malpractice Contingency-Fee Caps: A Big Victory for Florida's Voters and Tort Reformers? Maybe Not</atitle><jtitle>University of Miami law review</jtitle><date>2008-04-01</date><risdate>2008</risdate><volume>62</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>913</spage><epage>938</epage><pages>913-938</pages><issn>0041-9818</issn><coden>UMLRB5</coden><abstract>Examines the current law as it stands on the basis of FL's Amendment 3, which limits the contingency fee percentage a lawyer can recover in a medical malpractice action, as well as the legal arguments defining the related debate. An economic analysis sheds light on the costs & benefits of having a negotiable contingency fee by permitting a waiver, asserting that the FL Supreme Court ought to find that a waiver of rights granted by Amendment 3 is warranted. It is concluded that people are less likely to waive their Amendment 3 rights & more likely to stand by their "assigned" rights given the limits of human decision making. Adapted from the source document.</abstract></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0041-9818 |
| ispartof | University of Miami law review, 2008-04, Vol.62 (3), p.913-938 |
| issn | 0041-9818 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_58776074 |
| source | HeinOnline; PAIS Index; Alma/SFX Local Collection |
| subjects | Actions and defenses Compensation (law) Florida Insurance Liability Malpractice Medical profession Physicians |
| title | Medical-Malpractice Contingency-Fee Caps: A Big Victory for Florida's Voters and Tort Reformers? Maybe Not |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-04T14%3A19%3A15IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Medical-Malpractice%20Contingency-Fee%20Caps:%20A%20Big%20Victory%20for%20Florida's%20Voters%20and%20Tort%20Reformers?%20Maybe%20Not&rft.jtitle=University%20of%20Miami%20law%20review&rft.au=Cristoforo,%20Michael&rft.date=2008-04-01&rft.volume=62&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=913&rft.epage=938&rft.pages=913-938&rft.issn=0041-9818&rft.coden=UMLRB5&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E58776074%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=58776074&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |