Legal consequences of standard setting for competitive athletes with cardiovascular abnormalities

This paper addresses the issue of whether establishing consensus standards for the treatment of particular medical conditions increases a physician's exposure to legal liability. The conclusion reached is that the legal effects of standard setting, rather than representing a significant threat of liability, should be seen as beneficial to the medical profession. A fundamental point is that the legal test for liability is entirely dependent on the medical profession's definition of what constitutes adequate care. The law incorporates the standard of care defined by the medical profession and does not impose an external norm. In the absence of formally stated standards, the process of defining relevant medical criteria will involve a great deal of uncertainty. Outcomes of legal contests will be affected by such extraneous factors as the relative experience of the lawyers involved, their access to knowledgeable expert witnesses, and their strategic decisions made with respect to tactics and procedures. Establishment of formal standards has the salutory effect of limiting the influence of these factors and thus reducing the randomness of the results reached. Formal standards also have the advantage of being easily replicated in unrelated proceedings and thereby contribute to the development of a consistent, evenly applied rule of liability. Finally, even if formal standards are either more, or less, progressive than the actual state of medical practice, there is relatively little risk that they will produce untoward results.