Medical malpractice claims in the United States keep rising in cost and complexity. For doctors, that means more time in courtrooms, higher premiums, and bigger risks. But understanding what’s behind these shifts can help you reduce exposure and focus on what matters most: treating your patients.
A main reason for this trend is social inflation. Social inflation refers to the rise in insurance claim costs driven by socio-economic, legal, and behavioral factors. It is broadly defined to include any expenses related to higher claims costs that are not linked to traditional inflation measures.
This means more insurance claims and costs are rising because of legal, cultural, and economic changes. Increased public awareness of malpractice, evolving legal precedents, and changing health policy only add fuel to the fire.
The factors contributing to social inflation include social, legal, and economic influences. Social inflation is distinct from economic inflation and general economic inflation, as it often outpaces these and is often driven by non-economic factors. As a result, insurers face rising costs and higher claim costs, especially in bodily injury claims.
Social inflation also impacts more than just the courtroom. It influences how patients, lawyers, insurers, and juries view doctors in today’s healthcare system.
This blog looks at how social inflation is changing medical malpractice risk in 2025. It also shares ways to protect your practice from serious consequences.
Even when physicians provide care that meets accepted standards, jury awards can be in the millions of dollars. Social inflation is a major reason for this trend, driven by emotional verdicts, changing public views, and rising care costs. Claim severity is increasing as social inflation drives claim costs above typical economic inflation and claim trends.
On top of that, defending liability claims has never been pricier, with legal fees and court delays piling up. Large settlements resulting from prolonged legal proceedings and higher jury awards add to the financial risk. For doctors, these shifts can mean higher premiums, more liability, and increasing pressure to avoid the courtroom altogether. Liability insurance is especially affected, as rising legal and medical costs complicate accurate pricing. The insurance industry as a whole faces higher claim costs, increased premiums, and greater challenges in risk management and profitability.
Medical malpractice payouts keep climbing, partly as a result of social inflation. The U.S. National Practitioner Data Bank reports that the average malpractice payment was over $350,000 by 2023. Some states now report average awards above $500,000. Social inflation has also led to a noticeable increase in settlement awards, as legal costs and jury awards continue to rise.
In addition, nuclear verdicts — those over $10 million — are becoming more common. Larger settlements are also increasingly frequent, further driving up insurance claim costs.
Large claims are having a significant impact on the overall cost landscape, making proactive risk management and stricter underwriting practices more important for insurers.
Litigation costs have surged alongside rising payouts. The American Medical Association reports that the cost to defend a malpractice claim is increasing. Lengthy and complex legal proceedings contribute significantly to these higher costs, as extended cases often require more resources and time.
Increased litigation costs are a key driver of social inflation, as higher legal expenses and larger awards push insurance claim costs beyond general inflation.
Legal reform is being considered as a potential solution to address these rising costs and curb abuse within the legal system.
As social inflation speeds up, the legal environment for medical malpractice is changing. This exposes doctors to new and bigger risks. Changes in tort law, including expanded access to mass torts and evolving legal standards, have also influenced the risk landscape for medical malpractice claims.
More access to the courts, public attention, and strong financial rewards have made it easier for patients to sue. This has made it harder for doctors to defend themselves. Recent tort reform efforts, such as adjustments to damages limits and filing timeframes, have shifted the balance of litigation power and impacted outcomes, often favoring plaintiffs. In some states, changes to monetary caps on damages have resulted in higher awards and increased legal opportunities for plaintiffs.
Third-party litigation funding is becoming one of the most potent forces behind social inflation. Private investors now bankroll malpractice lawsuits in exchange for a cut of the settlement. This approach fuels longer, more aggressive cases.
This influx of outside capital shifts the legal playing field, enabling plaintiffs to pursue costly litigation without financial risk. As a result, defendants face well-funded opponents backed by investors with incentives to maximize settlement payouts.
In the era of social inflation, reputation is currency. State laws now require public reporting of malpractice claims and his transparency can shape jury attitudes and public trust long before a case reaches trial.
Doctors must now consider how damage to their reputation affects their legal risk strategy. This is another cost of a more open system.
Public exposure of legal claims has become more intense and immediate. Blogs, social media, and online news platforms can amplify malpractice filings within hours. This media environment shapes public perception — and that perception drives juror attitudes.
According to an article by the American Psychological foundation, media coverage can significantly affect jury behavior in high-profile medical cases.
Even if the claim is false, the damage to credibility can be lasting. Social inflation doesn’t just affect courtrooms — it reshapes the court of public opinion.
New advertising tools, tech platforms, and funding models have increased patients’ access to legal counsel, which may result in legal action. Many personal injury law firms now offer:
These tools lower the barriers to filing suit, even for minor or subjective complaints. In particular, innovation in legal advertising has dramatically expanded the plaintiff pipeline.
For physicians, that means more lawsuits, higher volume of low-merit claims, and a heavier administrative burden.
The definition of medical malpractice is evolving. Because of social inflation, plaintiffs and their lawyers are pushing legal limits. They are changing what harm means and who is responsible. This expansion now includes product liability and new types of claims, reflecting broader legal exposure for healthcare providers. Emerging risks, such as those related to new technologies and telemedicine, are also becoming more significant. Doctors must stay aware of emerging issues in the evolving legal landscape to manage potential liabilities effectively.
Physicians once faced claims based mostly on clear, physical harm because of negligence or informed consent. Today, as resources continue to be strained and new procedures become available, team-based errors, unrealistic patient expectations and satisfaction-related claims are more prevalent.
These changes have led to more liability cases with higher potential costs, as broader definitions allow for larger claims and settlements.
This expansion allows more lawsuits to move forward, regardless of outcome quality or standard-of-care compliance.
Recent court rulings are changing how malpractice liability is defined. Courts are broadening standards of negligence to include systemic breakdowns, not just individual errors.
Courts increasingly recognize claims tied to emotional harm, such as:
Concerns over social injustice are also influencing the recognition of non-physical injury claims, as societal factors drive broader definitions of harm.
This trend places more weight on how care is delivered, not just what is performed clinically.
Doctors today face liability from an expanding set of risks, including:
Corporations such as hospitals and healthcare systems are increasingly held accountable in malpractice litigation, with societal attitudes and expectations contributing to higher legal exposure and insurance costs.
In the context of social inflation, every patient interaction becomes a potential point of legal exposure. In some ways, doctors must now think like legal strategists as much as clinicians and be prepared to seek out legal advice when needed.
Legal risk isn’t shaped by courtrooms alone. Social inflation reflects a broader cultural shift in how patients view healthcare, harm, and justice. Societal attitudes toward healthcare and justice are shifting, influencing how juries perceive responsibility and compensation. Emerging behavioral trends are affecting jury decisions and legal outcomes, often resulting in larger settlements and verdicts. These changes directly impact consumers, who may face higher insurance premiums and damages as a result of increased legal costs.
Today’s juries are more informed — and more skeptical. People widely share high-profile malpractice cases and viral videos of medical errors on social media and news outlets. Even before a trial begins, jurors may bring deeply ingrained impressions into the courtroom.
Public expectations have changed. Patients now demand:
Additionally, businesses in healthcare are expected to be more transparent and accountable in their practices.
When these expectations aren’t met, silence is often interpreted as guilt.
Americans’ trust in the medical system is declining. A 2023 Gallup poll found that only 34% of Americans overwhelmingly trust the healthcare system. Jurors who question the honesty of healthcare providers may be more likely to support plaintiffs.
This can happen even when the clinical care has met professional standards. That skepticism has legal consequences. A more mistrustful public is more likely to sue. Ultimately, declining trust can lead to increased litigation and greater risk exposure for healthcare providers over time.
Jurors are not just passive observers — they are emotional decision-makers shaped by media, culture, and public sentiment. And broader forces of social inflation increasingly influence their decisions. A jury awarding an amount over $10 million, otherwise known as nuclear verdicts, is not unheard of.
In fact, the number of verdicts of $20 million or more in 2019 far exceeded the annual average seen between 2001 and 2010, highlighting a significant upward trend. These escalating nuclear verdicts are a key driver behind rising claim costs for insurers, as social inflation pushes the severity and expenses of claims well beyond normal economic inflation.
Modern jurors tend to be:
As a result, larger awards are being paid out more frequently due to these changing jury perspectives.
While punitive damages are still rare, they are growing in size and frequency. The risks associated with these kinds of exposures may place an increasing burden on insurers to pay larger settlements which can significantly impact their financial stability.
In 2017, Anuj Thapa, a 19-year-old student from Nepal at St. Cloud State University, broke his leg during a soccer game. Doctors at St. Cloud Hospital performed surgery but discharged him despite severe pain.
Six days later, another doctor diagnosed acute compartment syndrome, a condition causing permanent muscle damage. In 2022, a federal jury gave him $111 million. They said that poor post-surgery care caused his suffering.
Verdicts in civil cases, like the one above, show a bigger change. Jurors now see themselves as agents of accountability.
In a courtroom shaped by social inflation, medical expert witnesses are not just technical advisors — they’re storytellers. Their ability to explain, persuade, and humanize malpractice claims now carries greater weight than ever.
Insurance carriers increasingly collaborate with legal teams and expert witnesses to manage the impact of social inflation, using their expertise to help mitigate financial risks and improve litigation outcomes.
Plaintiffs’ attorneys now work with seasoned experts who:
A report by the RAND Corporation highlights how expert testimony and social inflation are increasingly influencing litigation outcomes.
Defense teams must now:
Class action lawsuits are not common in medical malpractice. However, they are becoming more frequent. This is especially true for cases with defective medical devices, systemic negligence, or widespread clinical errors.
These lawsuits let many patients combine their claims into one case. This puts more pressure on defendants to settle and raises the stakes.
Class actions offer both advantages and challenges for plaintiffs:
Health policy reforms are reshaping the malpractice landscape. Some states have introduced caps on non-economic damages, while others encourage alternative dispute resolution or fund safety initiatives. These efforts aim to reduce excessive jury awards and improve the overall quality of care.
With the rise of telemedicine and evolving healthcare practices, there is a growing need for specialized insurance products designed to cover new and complex risks that traditional policies may not address.
At the same time, telemedicine introduces unique legal risks. Providers face challenges related to verifying patient identity, collecting adequate histories, and navigating cross-state legal jurisdictions.
Courts are still developing clear legal standards around remote care, creating uncertainty for doctors.
Geography plays a major role in litigation outcomes. Medical malpractices payouts by state tend to vary because different states have vastly different laws, jury tendencies, and insurance market conditions. California has a $430,000 limit on non-economic damages under MICRA. In contrast, New York juries often give large verdicts in long-term injury cases.
Social inflation trends also vary by region, with some areas experiencing greater increases in claim costs and more aggressive legal environments, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic. These regional differences in social inflation can significantly affect litigation outcomes and insurance costs.
The National Practitioner Data Bank shows that states like Texas, which made strong changes to tort laws, have seen lower payouts and insurance costs. The location where someone files a lawsuit can have as much impact as the medical facts themselves.
Every U.S. state has laws concerning the statute of limitations on medical malpractice claims. Usually, you must file your lawsuit within one to three years from the date of the injury or from the date you reasonably should have known the injury might be the result of negligence. These laws aim to ensure timely resolution, preserve evidence integrity, and shield physicians from indefinite legal exposure.
While legal deadlines determine when claims may be filed, public perception often influences whether claims are filed at all. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 74% of Americans still trust doctors. However, this trust drops sharply after malpractice scandals or news about serious mistakes.
An example is the case of Dr. Conrad Murray, the physician involved in Michael Jackson’s death. His 2011 conviction for involuntary manslaughter was a criminal case.
However, the media coverage greatly affected the civil malpractice lawsuit that came after. Later reports indicated that public anger influenced what the jury expected. This increased pressure for a settlement, leading to a large payout.
These factors show how legal publicity and cultural stories can influence social inflation. They can change the outcome in important malpractice cases.
Despite a growing number of malpractice claims, not all patients have equal access to legal counsel. In addition, wealthier, better-educated individuals are more likely to recognize malpractice and consult an attorney.
High litigation costs, contingency fee screening, and geographic barriers all contribute to this imbalance. Legal aid organizations rarely accept malpractice cases because of their complexity and low funding priority. Disparities in legal access can lead to uneven accountability for healthcare systems. This adds to public doubt about fairness in medical justice.
Mental health has become both a cause of malpractice claims and a consequence of litigation itself. Patients are increasingly suing over emotional and psychological harm — like depression after birth trauma or PTSD from surgical complications. Courts are showing more openness to these non-physical claims, expanding the legal definition of injury.
Physicians, meanwhile, suffer from the toll of prolonged litigation and can experience significant emotional distress, including anxiety, depression, and burnout. We call this issue “malpractice stress syndrome.” It can impact how doctors perform and their job satisfaction over time. This adds to the hidden costs of lawsuits.
The legal terrain for medical malpractice is changing fast, and physicians need to keep pace. Social inflation, changing laws, shifting cultural views, and wider definitions of harm all affect today’s high-stakes lawsuits.
In an era defined by accountability, visibility, and increasing legal complexity, staying informed is no longer optional. It’s part of clinical best practice.
If you’re a doctor wondering whether you have full protection, don’t wait to discover the hard way. Indigo helps you find the right malpractice coverage for your practice. They offer solutions that let you focus on patient care, whether you work in private practice or the emergency room. We can even give you access to legal counsel and malpractice lawyers in the event you need it.
Keep these social inflation lessons in mind as you continue your practice – and always ensure you’re prepared for the unexpected. Connect with us to protect yourself against increasing risks. Invest in the right medical malpractice insurance coverage now for long-term protection.
Reach out to us today for a free consultation and secure the right medical malpractice insurance to protect yourself.
Image by pcess609 from iStock.
