Karen E. Martin


To combat the explosion of medical malpractice claims, some states have made arbitration a mandatory prerequisite to filing medical malpractice suits. These states hope that mandatory arbitration will decrease the number of claims and lessen the impact of medical malpractice suits. The federal government has created an obstacle to this effort in the form of the emergency medical treatment statute. This federal statute regulates emergency room care, but courts have been hesitant to call it a medical malpractice statute. As a result of the ambiguity in the federal statute, claimants are able to avoid state-mandated arbitration, thereby circumventing the goals of reducing the number of claims and lessening their impact. This problem is illustrated in the case of Brooks v. Maryland General Hospital, Inc.2 This Note addresses the problem and offers solutions.



To view the content in your browser, please download Adobe Reader or, alternately,
you may Download the file to your hard drive.

NOTE: The latest versions of Adobe Reader do not support viewing PDF files within Firefox on Mac OS and if you are using a modern (Intel) Mac, there is no official plugin for viewing PDF files within the browser window.