Escaping the Shadow of Malpractice Law

Abinovich-Einy addresses several constituencies operating at the meeting point of alternative dispute resolution (ADR), communication theory, healthcare policy, and medical-malpractice doctrine. From an ADR perspective, the need for, and barriers to, addressing non-litigable disputes, for which the alternative route is the only one, is explored. It is shown that ADR mechanisms may not take root when introduced into an environment that is resistant to collaborative and open discourse without additional incentives and measures being adopted

Enhancing Accountability and Learning in Dispute Resolution Through Technology

Este trabajo invita a los lectores a reconsiderar la relación entre la resolución electrónica de disputas (ODR) y los mecanismos tradicionales de resolución de disputas: la resolución alternativa de disputas (ADR) y los tribunales. Hasta la fecha, el ODR siempre se ha relegado a los casos en los que las vías tradicionales resultan ineficaces o no están disponibles. Este artículo examina el uso potencial del ODR incluso cuando exista la posibilidad de usar la vía tradicional para la resolución de conflictos. En particular, en este trabajo se destaca la contribución cualitativa que puede tener el ODR. Incluso en los casos en que no se emplee el ODR como medio para resolver el conflicto, puede servir de inspiración para introducir cambios en el diseño de los medios tradicionales de resolución de disputas. Estas vías tradicionales se han visto afectadas por una falta de responsabilidad, por lo que han tendido a adoptar unos formatos rígidos que impiden el aprendizaje y la mejora. El ODR, gracias sobre todo a la grabación automática de un gran volumen de datos en la comunicación de resoluciones en formato digital, tienen el potencial de mejorar tanto la responsabilidad como el aprendizaje. Este informe examina estas cualidades y sugiere algunas maneras mediante las cuales los mecanismos tradicionales de resolución de disputas podrían corregir viejos hábitos y prácticas arraigadas para reforzar su responsabilidad e impulsar el aprendizaje siguiendo el espíritu del ODR.This paper invites the readers to rethink the relationship between online dispute resolution (ODR) and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms: alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and courts. To date, ODR has been viewed as a niche area, appropriate where traditional avenues are unavailable or inefficient. This paper explores the potential role of ODR even where traditional avenues for dispute resolution exist. In particular, the paper highlights the qualitative contribution ODR can have. Even where ODR is not employed as a means for resolving conflict, it can inspire change in the design of traditional means for dispute resolution. These traditional avenues have suffered from an accountability deficit and have tended to adopt rigid molds that resist learning and improvement. ODR, in particular due to its automatic recording of rich data on resolution communications in digital format, has the potential for enhancing both accountability and learning. The paper explores these qualities and suggests some of the ways in which traditional dispute resolution mechanisms could amend old habits and ingrained practices to strengthen their accountability and drive learning in the spirit of ODR

BALANCING THE SCALES: THE FORD-FIRESTONE CASE, THE INTERNET) AND THE FUTURE DISPUTE RESOLUTION LANDSCAPE

The author discusses the Internet\u27s potential equalizing effect on dispute resolution institutions. The emergence of online dispute resolution (ODR) mechanisms and virtual courts are the clearest manifestation of the Internet\u27s influence on dispute resolution, but its influence extends beyond the immediate online environment, as is demonstrated throughout the Article by analyses of various examples and the specific case study of the Ford-Firestoned ebacle. The Ford-Firestones tory provides a rich case study for the positive potential as well as the pitfalls of resolving disputes in the nascent Internet society, and it is especially useful for dispelling the notion that the Internet will only affect technology-related disputes. The author analyzes dispute resolution institutions (courts and ADR mechanisms) as they currently exist and as they are likely to develop in the future. The Article\u27s prediction and main thesis is that as a result of the introduction of new technologies, traditionally disempowered disputants could potentially experience greater equality in the dispute resolution institutions of the Internet society. The Article concludes with a demonstration of how disputes similar to the Ford-Firestone case study will be played out in the landscape of the future

Foreword

The U.S. healthcare system has undergone dramatic changes in the past year, which will have a profound impact on American society. While the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 seeks to ensure healthcare coverage for the vast majority of Americans, controversies relating to scope of coverage, cost and course of treatment chosen, quality of care rendered, healthcare staff demeanor, and bioethical dilemmas are bound to persist. Indeed, in all likelihood, these controversies will even expand with the growth in the number of healthcare recipients under the federal scheme. Moreover, the changes introduced through the U.S. healthcare reform act are far from stable, as attempts to repeal the reforms have been launched. As we can see, the healthcare arena is a volatile setting, fraught with conflict and subject to strong ideological divides

The New New Courts

In this Article we describe the phenomenon of online courts, which is fast gaining momentum, and analyze these new new courts from an access to justice perspective. We distinguish between two turning points in terms of access to justice and courts: the rise of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) (producing what we refer to as the new courts ) and the spread of online dispute resolution (ODR) (giving rise to what we refer to as the new new courts ). While both developments seem to be motivated by similar rationales and a desire to increase access to justice, the implications of adopting ADR and ODR are different. The benefits associated with institutionalizing ADR in terms of access to justice were perceived primarily in efficiency-related terms due to the assumption that an inherent trade-off exists between efficiency and fairness. This assumption is now being challenged through ODR in the context of the new new courts. Because of the qualities of the digital medium and internet communication, ODR could potentially increase both the efficiency and fairness of dispute resolution processes, formal and informal. At the same time, the new new courts, precisely because of their reliance on algorithms and data, present novel challenges to fairness and open the door to new sources of danger for disputants and the judicial system