When disputes arise between patients and medical professionals, people may have questions. They could wonder whether it is better to resolve these conflicts in court or through alternative dispute resolution, also known as ADR, methods.
Both options have their pros and cons. Ultimately, the benefits of ADR outweigh the struggles with court battles in most cases.
Common types
ADR has various methods for resolving disputes outside of traditional courtroom litigation. Mediation and arbitration are two common forms of ADR.
In mediation, a neutral third party assists the conflicting parties in reaching an agreement that both parties like. Arbitration involves a neutral arbitrator who listens to both sides and makes a binding decision.
Efficiency and privacy
One advantage of ADR is its efficiency. Unlike court proceedings, which can drag on for months or even years, ADR typically offers a quicker resolution.
This not only saves time but also reduces the emotional and financial burdens on all parties involved. Additionally, ADR promotes confidentiality, allowing sensitive medical information to remain private.
Lack of hefty fees
Unlike ADR, litigation in court is often costly. Legal fees, expert witness fees and other expenses can quickly add up. This places a huge financial burden on both patients and medical professionals.
Suitability
While ADR offers many benefits, people should recognize that it may not be suitable for every situation. In cases where one party is unwilling to compromise, ADR may prove ineffective. This can lead to courtroom litigation. Keep in mind these court battles often result in a winner-takes-all outcome.
People should weigh the specific circumstances of each case. They can then choose the path forward that offers the greatest chance of achieving a fair resolution for everyone.