Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

International Trade, Law, and Public Health Advocacy

Abstract: Public Health Science and practice expanded during the course of the 20th century. Initially focused on controlling infectious disease through basic public health programs regulating water, sanitation and food, by 1988 the Institute of Medicine broadly declared that “public health is what we, as a society, do collectively to. assure the conditions for people to be healthy.” Commensurate with this definition, public health practitioners and policymakers today work on ;in enormous range of issues. The 2002 policy agenda of the American Public Health Association reflects positions on genomics’ role in public health; national health and safety standards for child care programs; sodium in Americans’ diets; the health and safety of emergency rescue workers; and war in Central Asia and the Persian Gulf.

Stability, Not Crisis: Medical Malpractice Claim Outcomes in Texas, 1988-2002

Abstract: Using a comprehensive database of closed claims maintained by the Texas Department of Insurance since 1988, this study provides evidence on a range of issues involving medical malpractice litigation, including claim frequency, payout amounts, defense costs, and jury verdicts. The data present a picture of stability in most aspects and moderate change in others. We do not find evidence in claim outcomes of the medical malpractice insurance crisis that produced headlines over the last several years and led to legal reform in Texas and other states. Controlling for population growth, the number of large paid claims (over $25,000 in real 1988 dollars) was roughly constant from 1990-2002. The number of smaller paid claims declined. Controlling for inflation, payout per large paid claim increased over 1988-2002 by an estimated 0.1 percent insignificant) -0.5 percent (marginally significant) per year, depending on the data set, but actual payouts in tried cases showed little or no time trend. Real defense costs per large paid claim rose by 4.2-4.5 percent per year. Real total cost per large paid claim, including defense costs, rose by 0.8-1.2 percent per year. The prior working paper version of this paper is available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=678601. The working paper version contains color figures, which were converted to black and white in the published version.

Trumping Precedent with Original Meaning: Not as Radical as It Sounds

Abstract: In recent years, originalism as a method of interpretation has grown in its intellectual and practical appeal. The latest challenge to originalism from nonoriginalists is based on the doctrine of precedent. Acceptance of originalism, it is charged, would necessitate the reversal of crucially important landmark decisions and thereby provides a reductio ad absurdum of originalism. Until recently, few originalists have considered carefully the relationship between originalism and the doctrine of stare decisis (though this situation is starting to change). In this short essay, I contend that original meaning should indeed trump previous Supreme Court decisions that are inconsistent with the original meaning of the Constitution. But the main thrust of the essay explains why this implication is not as radical as it sounds because there remains much room for the doctrine of precedent in originalism. It is not incompatible with original public meaning originalism to adhere to precedent in cases involving (a) nonconstitutional issues, (b) matters of constitutional construction, (c) detrimental reliance by identifiable individuals, (d) epistemic concerns about the correctness of originalist claims, and perhaps also (e) where the text was originally ambiguous. Knowing the degree to which a commitment to originalism entails the rejection of the doctrine of precedent may well influence the degree to which originalism is deemed acceptable by academics, judges, and the general public. For this reason, it is important to make clear that a commitment to following original meaning where it conflicts with judicial precedent is far less radical a stance than critics of originalism, and perhaps even some originalists, assume.