LLT Lab: Comp-MAL Project

There are two types of objectives for the Lab’s Comparative Medical Accident Liability (“Comp-MAL”) Project:

• First, to comparatively investigate the rule systems and evidence assessment patterns in medical malpractice cases in the United States and Italy;
• Second, to develop protocols for using the default-logic framework to investigate legal decisions in two different legal systems involving two different natural languages.

Read Post

In the case of Young v. United States, the federal District Court was required to apply California substantive law, and the California “Locality Rule” played an important role in deciding the case.

Read Post

The methodology for the Lab’s Comparative Medical Accident Liability (“Comp-MAL”) Project begins with identifying a sample of cases in the United States and Italy that is representative and instructive on several levels.

• First, the fact patterns selected should represent the major areas of medical conduct that give rise to malpractice law suits.
• Second, the decisions selected should involve the major types of legal issues that arise in medical malpractice cases.
• Third, the decisions selected should be sufficiently complex on the evidence, in order to comparatively investigate evidence assessment, and not merely rule systems.

Read Post

These are the assigned decisions for the course in Comparative Health Care Liability, part of the study abroad program in Pisa, Italy in 2010 co-sponsored by Hofstra Law School and the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna. The program as a whole incorporates both methods and materials developed at the LLT Lab.

Read Post

Diagrams of rule trees enable users to visualize the logic of a system of legal rules. The Lab creates software models that both display as rule tree diagrams and provide active templates for modeling the reasoning of individual legal decisions. We use this particular rule tree to model the U.S. medical malpractice decisions included in our Comparative Medical Accident Liability (“Comp-MAL”) Project.

Read Post

C.M. v. United States,
2006 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 82127
E.D. Missouri; November 9, 2006

• Alleged injury or harm: subgaleal hematoma, hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, and related injuries
• Theories of negligent conduct: failure of the doctor to be present earlier to monitor personally the plaintiff’s labor, and failure to order a caesarean delivery
• Judgment: Defendant is liable.

Read Post

Young v. United States,
2003 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 25238
W.D. Texas; July 11, 2003

• Alleged injury or harm: third-degree perineum tear during delivery of baby, and subsequent injuries
• Theories of negligent conduct: failure to perform an episiotomy, to give an enema during labor or prior to delivery, to administer pre-emptive antibiotics in repairing a laceration breakdown, and to use chromic stitches
• Judgment: Defendant is not liable.

Read Post