Large malpractice verdicts are rising due to shifting juries and legal tactics.
Medical malpractice jury awards are climbing again after years of relative calm, and the change is drawing concern across the health care system. Large jury awards, including verdicts topping ten million dollars, are appearing more often in courtrooms around the country. Some cases now reach totals that once seemed unthinkable, with awards passing fifty million dollars and, in rare cases, even one hundred million. As these figures rise, insurance costs for doctors increase as well, bringing renewed focus to why juries are granting such high amounts and how the legal climate has shifted.
One reason behind these growing awards is a change in how the public views medicine. Trust between patients and doctors took a hit during the COVID-19 period, when stress, fear, and mixed messages shaped many experiences with care. At the same time, health care has become more business driven. Large systems, staffing companies, and short visits can leave patients feeling like numbers rather than people. When lawsuits reach a jury, those feelings can shape how jurors see the case, even when there is no clear proof of wrongdoing. Some jurors now say they believe injured patients should be paid simply because harm occurred, not because a doctor failed to follow accepted care standards.
Another factor is that people are more used to hearing about huge sums of money. Sports contracts, movie deals, and business sales regularly make headlines with figures in the tens or hundreds of millions. Against that backdrop, a ten- or twenty-million-dollar award no longer sounds extreme to many jurors. What once felt shocking can now feel normal, which shifts the scale juries use when deciding damages.
Legal tactics have also changed. One method focuses on fear rather than facts. In these cases, lawyers argue that a single medical error is not just about one patient, but about danger to the whole community. The jury is asked to think about what might happen in the future if similar care continues, rather than what actually happened in the case at hand. This approach pushes jurors to see themselves as protectors of public safety, which can lead to higher awards meant to send a message. Some states have started to pass laws to limit this kind of argument, saying trials should focus on the specific facts of the case.
Another common tactic involves starting with a very high dollar request. When a jury first hears a massive number, that figure can shape everything that follows. Even if jurors think the request is too high, their final decision often ends up higher than it would have been if a lower number had been mentioned. Studies show that first numbers stick in people’s minds, and once planted, they are hard to ignore. Lawmakers in a few states have responded by limiting when and how lawyers can talk about dollar amounts during trials.
Pressure outside the courtroom plays a role as well. Some doctors report being warned that their personal homes, savings, or family funds could be targeted if they do not agree to settle. While such outcomes are unlikely in most cases, the stress of hearing these threats can be severe. Fear of financial ruin can push settlements higher and earlier, even when doctors believe they acted properly. In response, certain states have moved to protect personal assets unless there is proof of intentional harm or a lack of basic insurance coverage.
As these trends combine, the result is a system where jury awards keep growing and insurance costs follow. Medical groups argue that higher costs can reduce access to care, especially in high-risk fields or rural areas. States are experimenting with new laws to slow these changes, but the issue remains unsettled. For now, rising malpractice awards reflect a mix of public trust issues, courtroom strategy, and changing views on money, all reshaping how medical disputes are decided.
Join the conversation!