University of Baltimore Law Review


The recent rapid rise in medical malpractice insurance rates has engendered a proliferation of state activity designed to cope with the problem. This Comment analyzes the Constitutional challenges made to the medical malpractice mediation panels adopted by various state legislatures. The author concludes, in light of the decision in Attorney General v. Johnson upholding the somewhat unique Maryland Health Care Malpractice Claims Act, that it is likely that most such plans could withstand Constitutional attack.

Included in

Law Commons