Administrative compensation of medical injuries: a hardy perennial blooms again

Periods in which the costs of personal injury litigation and liability insurance have risen dramatically have often provoked calls for reform of the tort system, and medical malpractice is no exception. One proposal for fundamental reform made during several of these volatile periods has been to relocate personal injury disputes from the tort system to an alternative, administrative forum. In the medical injury realm, a leading incarnation of such proposals in recent years has been the idea of establishing specialized administrative "health courts." Despite considerable stakeholder and policy-maker interest, administrative compensation proposals have tended to struggle for broad political acceptance. In this article, we consider the historical experience of administrative medical injury compensation proposals, particularly in light of comparative examples in the context of workplace injuries, automobile injuries, and vaccine injuries. We conclude by examining conditions that may facilitate or impede progress toward establishing demonstration projects of health courts.     

Whither Suffering? The Potential Impact of Tort Reform on the Emotional and Existential Healing of Traumatically Injured Chronic Pain Patients

Approximately half of the state legislatures in the USA have enacted tort reform, generally focused on reducing noneconomic damages such as those awarded for pain and suffering of traumatically injured parties. Traumatic injury has been empirically associated with the development of chronic pain, which in turn has been associated with the concept of human suffering. This analysis examines the meaning of suffering within the context of traumatically induced chronic pain, recognizing that this population is at heightened risk of experiencing long-term emotional as well as physical pain. Factors contributing to profound suffering include the potential development of post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and anxiety, role/identity loss, maltreatment by a medical system generally inept in its management of chronic pain, and the negative manner in which personal injury victims are often treated by the legal system. While the American medical system struggles to identify suffering, the legal system—through tort reform—has chosen to simply ignore it, demonstrating little concern for the integrity of the vulnerable chronic pain sufferer. In doing so, the “destructed” chronic painient is further “deconstructed”. We argue that by limiting the size of settlements and jury awards, tort reform serves to potentially deny personal injury victims of a critical vehicle for finding meaning in their suffering, and accordingly limits their likelihood of achieving relief.     

Administrative "health courts" for medical injury claims: the federal constitutional issues

Our article analyzes whether the federal government may constitutionally supplant a traditional system of common-law trials before state judges and juries with new federal institutions designed by statute for compensating victims of medical injuries. Specifically, this article examines the federal constitutional issues raised by various proposals to replace traditional medical malpractice litigation in state courts with a federal system of administrative "health courts." In doing so, we address the following constitutional issues: 1. Is there federal authority to preempt state law (the commerce clause and spending clause issues)? 2. May jurisdiction be created in non-article 3 tribunals, and may claims be decided without trial by jury (the separation of powers and Seventh Amendment issues)? 3. Would pilot programs that require some claims to be pursued in a federal administrative forum while other claimants are left to pursue traditional state tort law remedies be constitutional (the equal protection issue)? The article concludes that a federal compensation system through administrative health courts should be constitutional provided the statute is appropriately drafted and that appropriate factual findings are made concerning the benefits to patients and the public as well as to doctors and their insurers.     

《民法典》环境侵权惩罚性赔偿制度之功能剖辨

《民法典》侵权责任编第1232条规定的环境侵权惩罚性赔偿制度,是一项新增制度.从内在机理审视,惩罚主义理论或功利主义理论均难以为环境侵权惩罚性赔偿制度的"惩罚"功能提供理论支撑.从规则体系审视,若赋予该制度"惩罚"功能,则错置了侵权责任的保护客体,混同了生态环境保护中私法机制与公法机制,忽视了"环境损害"救济法律机制体...     

行政罚款的确定标准:寻求一种新的思路

行政罚款是遏止违法违规行为及其危害的一项重要法律制度。但目前在我国 ,行政罚款基本上处于一种“无章可循”的状态。本文对该领域存在的各种主要偏差进行了检讨 ,参考美国侵权法中的汉德公式提出了一种处理行政罚款的新思路 ,以使行政罚款在我国更加合理有效、更充分地实现它应有的功能和作用。虽然该公式尚未被系统地应用于美国侵权法之外的其他领域 (因此 ,本文提出的在行政罚款方面应用该公式的思路无论在美国法还是中国法领域都是一种新的尝试 ) ,但它可以被用来确定行政罚款的标准和具体数额 ,为我们更合理地管制有关生产和社会活动提供一种新的思路与理论指导     

商标恶意抢注法律规制路径探究

商标恶意抢注有违诚实信用原则,应予规制。适用我国现行《商标法》规制恶意抢注在注册确权、侵权救济和法律责任承担方面存在局限性;基于《侵权责任法》保护民事权益的范围所限,商标恶意抢注并非均为民事侵权行为,适用《侵权责任法》难以对恶意抢注实施全面规制;以《反不正当竞争法》规制恶意抢注,可对其启用行政调查措施,并通过法律责任承担规定使得恶意抢注人为此承担民事责任和行政责任,但须以竞争关系的存在和构成不正当竞争行为为适用要件,因此存在边界限制。为有效规制恶意抢注,应当结合前述立法的功能定位选择多元化法律规制路径,并从明确恶意抢注商标不予注册、规定未经实际使用的注册商标不得转让、限制恶意抢注商标的请求权方面对我国商标立法以制度完善。     

生态文明背景下侵权法一般规则的“绿色化”改造

作为落实《民法总则》绿色原则的重要领域,侵权责任法回应环境问题不能仅局限于环境侵权责任专章。侵权法一般规则未对绿色原则做出适当回应,已与环境侵权责任专章内容的不断发展形成巨大反差,致使环境侵权规则在整体上游离于侵权法体系之外。此状况不仅理论上难以自洽,而且招致了实践争议,不利于对环境权益的保护。在侵权法一般规则中贯彻绿色原则,并与环境侵权的专门规定相互呼应,既是生态文明的时代需求,也是侵权法、民法体系化的必然要求。完善民法典侵权责任编(草案)应以全面救济环境损害为目标,具化、优化侵权责任方式和责任承担,同时注重发挥法律解释的作用,通过多途径推动侵权法一般规则的绿色化,增强侵权法体系乃至民法体系的融贯性。建议修改侵权责任编(草案)的救济范围、责任方式和责任分担等规定,并在《民法总则》纳入民法典时调整相关规范,形成从民法总则、侵权法一般规则到环境侵权专门规则相互协调的环境损害民法救济体系。     

英国行政裁判所的最新改革及其启示

20世纪90年代以来,英国行政法的一个重要动向是改革行政裁判所制度。作为英国宪政改革大背景下的具体产物,2007年《裁判所、法院和执行法》对行政裁判所的性质和定位、组成和结构、程序规则、裁决、上诉机制、裁决的监督和救济等都作了重大调整。这些做法对我国行政司法制度的完善具有参考借鉴价值。     

行政法治与中国上海 自由贸易试验区政府职能转变

建立中国（上海）自由贸易试验区是在新形势下推进改革开放的重大举措,对加快政府职能转变、探索管理模式创新,具有重要意义。自由贸易试验区政府职能转变必须按照法治政府建设的要求,深化管理机构改革,不断推进行政立法完善,探索合理、有效的行政执法模式,完善行政相对人的权利救济制度。     

行政赔偿违法归责原则的合理定位

我国行政赔偿违法归责原则面临诸多问题,违法归责原则中的"法"不能等同于当前我国行政法体系中的"行政违法"之"法"。作为侵权法之特别法的行政侵权赔偿制度,其违法归责原则应定位于侵权法上的"行为违法",违法意味着注意义务的违反,可作为"过错客观化"之标准。这种认识可以克服目前违法归责原则面临的困境,使违法归责原则回归到过失责任原则。     

民法上支配权与请求权的不同逻辑构成——兼论人格权请求权之独立性

请求权是特定人之间的法律关系在逻辑上的必然安排。救济关系系在特定人之间展开,所以救济权必然表现为一种请求权。救济权这一性质的确立,标志着民事责任制度由公法向私法的回归。救济权分为退出式请求与割让式请求,因而包括人格权在内的支配权保护之立法,存在着两种抽象方式：一种是以“救济权的性质”为抽象的方式,导致支配权请求权在法律制度上的独立;另一种是以"救济权的内容"为抽象方式,导致支配权请求权存在于侵权责任制度之中,从而丧失独立性。在后一种立法模式之下,支配权请求权的概念和理论上的独立性以及由此产生的逻辑关系和规则原理,在统一的侵权责任制度下仍应有所体现。     

公法不当得利及其救济

随着给付行政的兴起,公法实践中出现了因欠缺法律原因而发生的财产变动。在适用民法不当得利制度无法解决的情况下,基于依法行政以及财产权保护的需要,应确立公法不当得利制度。在公法不当得利中,行政主体和行政相对人均可享有公法不当得利返还请求权,而此种请求权则可以通过做出行政行为以及提起行政给付诉讼的形式加以救济。     

民事权益受损者行政诉讼原告资格考辨

民事权益受损者本应通过民事诉讼获得救济,一旦其请求行政机关介入查处违法行为或解决民事纠纷时往往会引发行政诉讼原告资格问题.本文采实质诉权说认为,民事权益受损者起诉权的认定应以公法请求权为基础,故需以保护规范理论为工具探寻公法规范中是否包含保护私人利益的指向,而非简单以侵权行为影响论或行政行为影响论判断受害者的行政诉讼原...     

我国侵权责任法的体系构建——以救济法为中心的思考

我国侵权责任法应定位为一种救济法,其基本架构与体系应依如下思路进行建构:应采取多元归责原则,将过错责任作为一般条款,将严格责任、公平责任原则进行类型化分解;采"过错吸收违法"的观点,侵权责任构成要件应由损害、过错与因果关系三要件组成;绝对权请求权不应全部纳入侵权责任法中,而应将它们分置于民法典的相应部分。另外,损害赔偿制度也应在救济法的思维下进行体系建构。     

荷兰的分区规划、土地征收与房地产管理

分区规划是荷兰空间规划中最为重要的规划之一,也是政府行使土地征收权和房屋管理权的基础。在分区规划的制定和修改过程中,规划的专业性、有效的公共参与和完善的司法救济制度不但确保了民众利益不受行政权肆意侵犯,也促进了人与自然、经济与社会的和谐发展。这种以分区规划为基础的土地管理模式,对中国土地管理制度的变革和房地产市场的健康发展具有一定借鉴意义。     

Market Processes, Standardisation, and Tort Law

Private standards play a decisive role in tort law and in administrative law. Although they seem to be a perfect tool to achieve the goal of European integration, they tend to substitute democratic legitimacy with uncontrolled private governance. The loss of democratic control is accentuated by the failure of markets to provide sufficient incentives for standardising organisations to behave in a non-opportunistic manner. The dangers of cartelisation and oligopolistic behaviour are obvious. The approach to overcome these deficits is complex: on the one hand, an institutional governance of private organisations is necessary to incorporate third party interests in the process of enacting private standards; on the other hand, the legal effects of private standards have to be restricted to mere assumptions dependent on the democratic quality of their enacting process. The problem of democratic legitimacy is aggravated by the parallel substitution of state authorities' control by means of private certification organisations which control only the management procedures of firms. As these management systems are difficult to be evaluate, the opportunities for opportunistic behaviour amongst firms and certifiers increases. Moreover, markets themselves fail to discipline certifiers by virtue of a lack of observable factors which might indicate the quality of certification. Tort law, too, cannot fulfil that gap by providing liability for damages caused by undue certifications because tort law suffers from a variety of shortcomings such as missing protection of public goods and difficult assessments of causation linkages. In sum, the author argues for a mixture of market incentives, tort law and administrative law. Each sector must fill in the gaps left by the others.     

“新闻(媒体)侵权”否认说

侵权责任法不应规定"新闻侵权"或"媒体侵权"。依文义分析看,支持"新闻(媒体)侵权"者,既未能明确协调好"新闻(媒体)侵权"与侵害名誉权、侵害隐私权等侵权行为之间的关系,又未能解决好"新闻(媒体)侵权"的特殊性问题;从比较法上看,无论是大陆法系的老法典、新法典,还是比较注重实用和实践经验的美国法,都没有承认"新闻(媒体)侵权";我国的立法与司法解释也从未规定过"新闻(媒体)侵权"。"新闻(媒体)侵权"之所以不被世界各国所采纳,根本原因在于,它与近现代民法的基本技术方法背道而驰。     

医疗纠纷民事案件处理的发展——从“事故论”向“侵权论”的转变

在我国现代历史上。“医疗事故”这一词汇经历了从新闻语言向卫生管理语言、卫生立法语言以及民事、刑事立法语言演变的过程。由于国情和社会制度的特点．卫生行政部门长时间强势主导“医疗事故”事件的处理．也使“医疗事故”概念深深地植入于我国法官的思维之中．对法院民事审判理念产生了深刻地影响作用。因我国医学界、法学界和审判实务界等对于医疗纠纷的法律处理制度和观点分歧之大，超越了其他各国和我国台湾、香港地区的法学认识．以致形成了独特的医学法律观点——即“事故论”和“侵权论”。近年来随着民事法律思想的深入研究以及对侵权法律概念的进一步认识．具有浓厚卫生行政色彩的“医疗事故”概念逐渐退出民事审判的舞台．侵权思想已经逐步回归，充分体现了我国民事法律和民事审判的进步。     

Changing legal standards for proof of causation in hazardous waste tort cases. Plaintiffs' problems and congressional responses

Increasing public awareness and concern over the possible dangers of exposure to toxic chemicals and hazardous wastes has resulted in a variety of lawsuits brought by plaintiffs claiming injury resulting from chemical exposure. The legal system and its traditional approach to tort cases demands that a plaintiff demonstrate that a particular chemical substance was the "cause in fact" of his injury. However, a plaintiff's inability to present credible scientific evidence sufficient to pinpoint conclusively the specific cause of his injury or disease, particularly in cancer cases, leads to defeat in courts of law. This article discusses the existing barriers to plaintiffs' recovery in toxic tort cases and reviews congressional proposals designed to ease plaintiffs' evidentiary burden and increase their chances of prevailing.