A Study On The Trial Mechanism Optimization Of Medical Damage Litigation

Establishing an impartial,efficient,and authoritative medical dispute judgment system is an inevitable requirement for resolving disputes,relieving the conflicts between doctors and patients and establishing a harmonious society.Medical dispute judgment reform is promoting under the background of judicial reform.However,there are still deficiencies in the trial mechanism for medical disputes that need further development and improvement.Objective: This study aimed to compare the process and results of medical dispute judgment from three different places,revolving the value objectives of judicial reform:fairness,effectiveness,effects.Evaluating the status and insufficiency of medical disputes judgment in China and finding the factors to propose suggestions for solving problems and to provide the basis for future legislation and justice Reform.Methods: Based on the methods of literature research and empirical research,medical dispute cases of three cities in Jiangsu,Anhui,and Hubei province in 2016 were collected.Extracting information according to dimensions of fairness,effectiveness and effects from those cases,such as trial procedures,litigation attorneys,adjudicators,damage identification agencies,the rate of identification opinion acceptance,and re-identification proportion etc.Analyzing the causes of the differences and the deficiencies in the trial process to evaluating the trials in the three places by chi-square test,correlation test,rank sum test and case analysis.Results:(1)System of people’s assessors lacks supervision.(2)Judges’ adoption of identification reflects initiative.(3)Missing or chaotic identification is harmful to the patient.(4)The judges from three cities have different levels of control for reidentification.(5)The parties’ objections failed to be resolved effectively.(6)The trial of Medical Malpractice Litigation takes much time.(7)Trial Balance is better in Wuhan.(8)Specialization and professionalization of trial have shown initial success.(9)Ratio of lawsuit income is relatively higher in Wuhan.Suggestions:(1)Improve the system of people’s assessors to promote the people’s nature of the judiciary.(2)Promote the professionalization of the trial teams.(3)Build a legal help platform and strengthen the judge’s interpretation power.(4)Choose the ordinary or simple procedures legitimately.(5)Control the re-identification strictly and standardize commission for the appraisal agency.(6)Unify the access mechanism of appraisal agency to improve the quality of identification.(7)Implement the system of the appraiser’s appearance in court to improve the quality of evidence.