Lawsuit in the Hospital It is an indisputable fact that health care business inherently carries a unique set of risks as a business organization; lawsuits by patients are common. What is not common is the fact that a trained professional who has sworn by the Hippocratic Oath to “do no harm,” would seek to file a lawsuit against a hospital because his service is no longer needed because of the new direction that the hospital is going (Grand Canyon University, 2011). To be fair, this physician is claiming an “injury.” It is also fair and true to say that this claim was made after this physician was notified that the relationship will be severed after four months. Due to the sequence of events and the circumstances of this case, any logical, objective, and fair-minded observer would question the underlying motive of this claim and, subsequently, its validity. However, since cases like this are not usually adjudicated in the moral court or court of public opinions, this facility is prepared to explore its options and seek resolution either through a formal arrangement, a formal institution, or a legal entity such as the following: Court of law, arbitration, mediation, and / or settlement. In order to make an informed and appropriate decision, it is not only necessary to analyze and fully understand each choice conceptually and practically, but it is also important to assess the pros and cons as well. Court of Law According to Merriam Webster dictionary (1828), court of law is an arm of the judicial branch of government that adjudicates cases and administers justice, using legislation or precedence. On the basis of this definition alone, it is clear that the ideal step to take is to defend this case in the court of law in order to obtain justice. However, the circumstances of this case are not ideal neither are the potential ramifications. Nevertheless, in order to appreciate the staggering impact of this case being adjudicated in the court, one must fully analyze the pros and cons of that strategy.
The Pros of Going to Court As indicated above, by going to court, there is a legal path to justice. In event that this hospital loses the case, there is also the appeal process by which the decision can be contested. Additionally, by defending the case in the court, the hospital would send a clear signal to any potential plaintiff that it would not be cowed into settling any frivolous claims.
The Cons of Going to Court It is becoming increasingly obvious that going to court would not only be expensive but also time-consuming. According to Lemak and Jenkins (2000), “a 250-bed hospital spend about $300,000 to $1million defending medical malpractice lawsuit, not including settlements and judgements” (p.52). Out of these claims, Lemak and Jenkins (200) added, 50% of them are paid. Statistics also indicates that an average of $500,000 is awarded to plaintiff per jury verdict (Lemak and Jenkins, 20066). It goes without saying that the attorney’s fees could be quite exorbitant, thus adding to the cost. This process can also become very time-consuming and cumbersome for various reasons. For example, the pre-trial discoveries, depositions, and sworn testimonies are all legal processes that take time. Additionally, there is the risk of having the hospital’s reputation dragged through the mud and, subsequently tarnishing it in these days of social media information networks),

Arbitration Arbitration as it is generally understood is a legal recourse that does not involve the court but utilizes the expertise of a specialist in the area of dispute. According to Hofstadter (1964), arbitration has more moral, cost, and other resource benefits than adjudication. The question this hospital is facing is whether it desires adjudication according to law or settlement by arbitration. To answer this question, it is important to look at the pros and cons of arbitration in its entirety relative to this case.
The Pros of Arbitration Arbitration has eluded to above, utilizes the expertise of a professional rather than a less skilled jury who can be swayed by emotional testimonies rather than by facts (Grand Canyon University, 2011). Arbitration also provides privacy to the outcome of the case since there are no witnesses, no jury, no judge, and no public exposure. Through arbitration, justice of peace, reconciliation, and compromise can be executed (Hofstadter, 1965). Perhaps, the most important advantage of settling this case by arbitration would be that it is cost-effective and an efficient process. According to Orr (2008), it takes “three to four times longer to litigate claims than to arbitrate them” (p.61). So, its efficiency comes not only because it is adjudicated by a specialist, but because it also serves time and money.
The Cons of Arbitration The obvious problem with arbitration is that, although it is ideally faster than a trial, it does take quite some time because the process involves finding an arbitrator, establishing reasonable limits for discovery, finding and adopting a strategy that cultivates cooperation. For example, the right tone must be struck to avoid being excessively adversarial during this process. Another drawback in arbitration is that if adjournment is sought, and numerous motions are filed, followed by prolong discovery, arbitration may resemble an actual trial, hence unworthy of the commitment (Orr, 2008). Mediation This is a resolution process brought about the parties in dispute and facilitated by a mediator. There are no discoveries, no motions to file, no jury, and no legal verdict; all it needs is that the disputants reach a satisfactory compromise. For authentication of this assertion, the pros and cons must be fully analyzed.
The pros of Mediation As mentioned above, mediation is a lot shorter a process than both the court adjudication and arbitration. Since there are none of the intricacies of the court or arbitration such as deposition or discoveries, mediation is also cost-effective, more so than arbitration. Intriguing about mediation is the fact that it gives the disputants the control over the process in the absence of an arbitrator and a judge. The only third party involved is a mediator who is essentially a facilitator of the process and has no legal basis to make formal decision or judgement. Ideally, compromise and civility can be achieved also by the process.
The Cons of Mediation The irony in the mediation process is that compromise, which is a component of its strength, can become its weakness as well. In other words, for mediation to occur, the parties involved must be willing to compromise. In a contentious environment, compromise can be an abstract word and not a practical one. Structural Settlement This is another alternative means by which this case could be resolved without having to go to court, arbitration, or the mediation process. The hospital can negotiate an agreement with the physician and make a compensatory offer. This, like the aforementioned options, will also depend on the cost-benefit comparison.
The Pros of structural Settlement An outstanding benefit of a structured settlement is its time-saving nature. Another strength of this process is that it embodies all the benefits of mediation without the mediator. Which means that the parties have even a greater control of their resultant fate in the settlement process. So, if mediation minimizes the waste of resources, structured settlement eliminates it altogether.
The Cons of Structural Settlement The case against structured settlement is that it can encourage other frivolous lawsuits because prospective complainants may seek to exploit the process by threatening to sue (Grand Canyon University, 2011). Final Recommendation Regardless of which avenue this hospital subsequently takes in the resolution of this case, it is recommended that it complete a discovery process, however limited that may be, in order to have sufficient information about the strengths and weaknesses of this case. Having said that, this hospital should not and would not permit a “fishing expedition” in pretext of discovery. Therefore, reasonable time lines and parameters must be established. Nevertheless, based on the extensive analysis of the various options, their pros and cons, and the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, it is recommended that the hospital initiate a structural settlement. This should be in the form of a three-year contract renewal or a $50,000.00 monetary compensation. This recommendation is based on the fact that a settlement is cost-effective, less time-consuming, and protects the privacy of the outcome of the case. However, if this option fails, it is recommended that the hospital proceed to mediation, arbitration, and the court system, respectively. The hospital must resist the temptation to bring in the emotional aspect of this case into its decision-making process as this could lead to an outright legal battle that can only be resolved in the court system. It is recommended that it remains ethical, professional, and focus. Finally, a process review board must be formed to look into this case and make preventive recommendations.