a good place to start is to review the consequences of medical malpractice in countries where the signal to noise ratio is not as deafening as our own.

civil.udg.es/Eurocentre/...practice.htm

then enumerate contributing factors that make litigation more expensive in the US.

"Litigation in the U.S. has at least four distinctive procedural features that drive up malpractice costs. The first is jury trials, which can veer out of control and in any case introduce significant uncertainty. The second is the contingency-fee system, which allows well-heeled lawyers to self-finance litigation. The third is the rule that makes each side bear its own costs. This induces riskier lawsuits than are undertaken in most other countries, such as Canada, England and most of Europe, where the loser pays the legal costs of the winner. The fourth is extensive pretrial discovery outside the direct supervision of judges, which occurs far more readily here than elsewhere."

"Americans, for example, file claims about 3.5 times more often than Canadians."

online.wsj.com/article/SB...770707.html

so a place to start is to replace juries with expert commissions. something like this system already exists (e.g. tax court).

"Doctrinal reform cannot stop these abuses. What is needed is the replacement of juries with specialized commissions like those in France, which help reduce litigation expenses and promote uniformity in case outcomes across regions."

anyway. hypothetically, what happens if the lawsuit mentioned below shuts down the hospital? or it impacts the budget sufficiently making it necessary to lay off staff or shut down a ward?