Mock defendants' procedural justice judgments of alternative trial procedures in a medical malpractice case
Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1997
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024886631151
Abstract
Mental health professionals were asked to imagine themselves in the role of defendant in a medical malpractice case. Each participant was told that their case could be tried according to standard adversary trial procedures or by an alternative procedure. The alternative procedures involved either varying the way that expert testimony would be developed or bifurcation of issues at trial. Participants rated the available alternative procedure relative to the ADVERS procedure in terms of preference, fairness, willingness to comply with trial outcomes, and other procedural justice dimensions. Results indicated a strong endorsement of potential alternatives to the standard adversarial trial process for resolving medical malpractice claims.
Was this content written or created while at USF?
Yes
Citation / Publisher Attribution
Law and Human Behavior, v. 21, issue 3, p. 257–268
Scholar Commons Citation
Poythress, Norman and Murrin, Mary. R., "Mock defendants' procedural justice judgments of alternative trial procedures in a medical malpractice case" (1997). Mental Health Law & Policy Faculty Publications. 295.
https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/mhlp_facpub/295
