Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cadre.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!mcnc!idis!cadre!geb
From: geb@cadre.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.flame
Subject: Re: Not a flame: Arbitration Info
Message-ID: <187@cadre.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 20-Jan-85 09:31:02 EST
Article-I.D.: cadre.187
Posted: Sun Jan 20 09:31:02 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 23-Jan-85 06:19:55 EST
References: <580014@acf4.UUCP>
Reply-To: geb@cadre.ARPA (Gordon E. Banks)
Organization: Decision Systems Lab., Univ. of Pgh.
Lines: 12
Summary: 


The trouble with arbitration is:

1.  The greedy plaintiff's lawyer in an inflated personal injury
or malpractice case will never agree to it, since it is not as
likely to yield as big a reward (thus contingency fee).

2.  The arbitrators are almost always lawyers.  In malpractice
cases, there should certainly be doctors on the panel, since
they are best qualified to tell whether there was malpractice,
and also how bad off the patient (plaintiff) really is.