Abstract We explore empirically, using a competing risk model, the relationship between information about case strength and the speed with which medical malpractice disputes are resolved. We have data on the time to resolution of a number of such disputes in a group of English hospitals, as well as the means by which each dispute is resolved (drop, settlement, or trial). In addition we have detailed data on the evolution of expert assessments of case strength, and on the timing of procedural events (i.e. external experts' reports) that are designed to share information and that, therefore, might be expected to influence litigation outcomes. We find that litigation encourages dropping and settling of cases over time in a systematic way relating to their assessed strength; cases that involve relatively little uncertainty are resolved faster than those where liability appears to be more unclear. We suggest that this evidence is consistent with the litigation process using time to help sort, and deal with, cases according to their strength. JEL number: C7, K
