About two weeks ago I reported that the New Hampshire Senate has adopted an early offer approach to medical malpractice that would allow a patient to initiate the early offer process. See here.
My friend Professor Chris Robinette (Widener School of Law) has now published a short response to the most common arguments against early offer programs here.
He does a good job explaining the issues and argues that programs like this one work to offer an alternative to litigants who would prefer a faster way to resolve their disputes even though they might get a higher recovery if they choose to litigate. As I said in my original post, I like the fact that the proposal is not mandatory - if it were I would be completely opposed to it. However, I am not sure how effective the proposal will be because the caps it sets on damages seem (at least to me) to be too low.