TY - JOUR

T1 - АЛЬТЕРНАТИВНОЕ (ВНЕСУДЕБНОЕ) УРЕГУЛИРОВАНИЕ МЕДИЦИНСКИХ СПОРОВ: ПРИЧИНЫ НЕВОСТРЕБОВАННОСТИ В РОССИИ И ПЕРСПЕКТИВЫ

AU - Кратенко, Максим Владимирович

N1 - 1. Bogdanoski T. Medical negligence dispute resolution: A role for facilitative mediation and principled negotiation // Australasian Dispute Resolution Journal. 2009. Vol. 20(2). 2. Feldman E. C. Law, Society, and Medical Malpractice Litigation in Japan // Washington University Global Studies Review. 2009. Vol. 8. 3. Feola A., Marsella L. T. Medical Liability: The Current State of Italian Legislation // European Journal of Health Law. 2015. Vol. 22. 4. Galton E. Mediation of Medical Negligence Claims // Capital University Law Review. 2000. Vol. 28(2). 5. Liang Ch.-M., Lefler R. B. Taiwan’s Medical Injury Law in Action // Emory International Law Review. 2024. Vol. 38(1). 6. Liebman C. L. Medical Malpractice Mediation: Benefits Gained, Opportunities Lost // Law and Contemporary Problems. 2011. Vol. 74. 7. Macchiaroli J. E. Medical Malpractice Screening Panels: Proposed Model Legislation to Cure Judicial Ills // George Washington Law Review. 1990. Vol. 58. 8. Metzloff T. B. The unrealized potential of malpractice arbitration // Wake Forest Law Review. 1996. Vol. 31. 9. Munuera Gomez P., Armadans Tremolosa I. Health mediation as an alternative means of conflict resolution in the practice of medicine in turbulent times: An update // Medicina Clinica. 2024. No. 162. 10. Pranka D. The price of medical negligence - should it be judged by the criminal court in the context of the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights? // Baltic Journal of Law and Politics. 2021. No. 14(1). 11. Relis T. "It’s Not about the Money”: A theory on Misconception of Plaintiffs’ Litigation Aims // University of Pittsburgh Law Review. 2007. Vol. 68. 12. Stauch M. S. Medical Malpractice and Compensation in Germany // Chicago-Kent Law Review. 2011. Vol. 86. Iss. 3. 13. Sustek P., Holcapek T. Alternative Dispute Resolution in Medical Malpractice Disputes // Zeljko R., Roncevic A., Yongqiang L. Economic and Social Development: 22nd International Scientific Conference on Economic and Social Development - "The Challenges of Modern World”: Book of Proceedings. Varazdin, 2017. 14. Wang M. et al. The role of mediation in solving medical disputes in China // BMC Health Services Research. 2020. No. 20. 15. Xiaowei Y. U. Causal Uncertainty in Chinese Medical Malpractice Law - When Theories Meet Facts // Tsinghua China Law Review. 2016. Vol. 9(1). 16. Иваненко В. Некоторые вопросы возмещения вреда, причиненного жизни или здоровью пациента вследствие недостатка медицинской услуги // Цивилистика. 2025. Вып. 3. 17. Кивленок Т. В. Роль медиации в урегулировании правовых конфликтов // Вестник гражданского процесса. 2020. № 4. 18. Кратенко М. В. «Врачебные дела»: что думают о них судьи и честны ли они с собой // Цивилистика. 2025. № 3. 19. Кузьменков В. А. Медицинский третейский суд: состояние и перспективы // Социология медицины. 2024. Т. 23. № 2. 20. Купряхин В. А., Швецова Е. А. Проблемы реализации норм статьи 41 Конституции РФ в вопросе оказания медицинской услуги // Юридический вестник Самарского университета. 2018. Т. 4. Вып. 4. 21. Минкина Н. И. Медиация как способ разрешения конфликтов, возникающих в сфере здравоохранения // Медицинское право. 2017. № 6. 22. Петроль О. Д. Перспективы ведения наследственного арбитража в России // Новые горизонты международного арбитража. Вып. 4: сб. ст. / под ред. А. В. Асоскова, А. И. Муранова, Р. М. Ходыкина. М., 2018. 23. Салыкин А. А. Страхование профессиональной ответственности врачей в Российской Федерации: существенные условия договора // Медицинское право. 2023. № 4. 24. Тимофеев И. В. К вопросу о третейском разбирательстве как современном методе альтернативного разрешения споров в здравоохранении России // Евразийская интеграция: экономика, право, политика. 2012. № 12. 25. Шмелев И. А., Сергеев В. В., Купряхин В. А. Механизмы регулирования споров, связанных с ненадлежащим оказанием медицинских услуг // Проблемы социальной гигиены, здравоохранения и истории медицины. 2021. Т. 29(2).

PY - 2026/3/30

Y1 - 2026/3/30

N2 - Due to their specific nature, medical disputes pose difficulties for judges, and they are characterized by lengthy proceedings and significant costs. The litigation delays the actual restoration of the victim's rights, and it poses reputational risks for medical organizations and doctors. As a result, various ADR technics are being tested in global practice to resolve medical disputes: pre-trail screening panel, mediation, arbitration, etc. In Russia, the experience of using ADR procedures in the field of medical malpractice is extremely limited. Despite the existing regulation, most medical disputes are still resolved in court. This situation is caused by a combination of objective factors, including the specific features of the Russian healthcare system, the nuances of procedural law, and the excessive pro-consumer approach to medical disputes. The author of the study suggests taking a number of measures aimed at reducing the weight of relevant factors and increasing the interest of the parties in ADR procedures. In particular, mediation or other conciliation procedure could be introduced as a mandatory pre-trial procedure, provided that this does not significantly limit the availability of judicial protection. The non-arbitrability of disputes regarding compensation for harm to life and health as provided in the Article 221 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code is not indisputable. De lege lata suggests that the relevant prohibition should be interpreted restrictively and should not apply to claims by patients for compensation for moral damage that are not related to injury. De lege ferenda, it is possible to cancel the above prohibition, provided that the arbitration agreement with the victim is concluded after the injury has been inflicted. Partial arbitrability of medical disputes can also be achieved in the case of a wider spread of liability insurance for medical service providers by transferring patients' claims to the quality of treatment to the level of disputes over the payment of insurance compensation.

AB - Due to their specific nature, medical disputes pose difficulties for judges, and they are characterized by lengthy proceedings and significant costs. The litigation delays the actual restoration of the victim's rights, and it poses reputational risks for medical organizations and doctors. As a result, various ADR technics are being tested in global practice to resolve medical disputes: pre-trail screening panel, mediation, arbitration, etc. In Russia, the experience of using ADR procedures in the field of medical malpractice is extremely limited. Despite the existing regulation, most medical disputes are still resolved in court. This situation is caused by a combination of objective factors, including the specific features of the Russian healthcare system, the nuances of procedural law, and the excessive pro-consumer approach to medical disputes. The author of the study suggests taking a number of measures aimed at reducing the weight of relevant factors and increasing the interest of the parties in ADR procedures. In particular, mediation or other conciliation procedure could be introduced as a mandatory pre-trial procedure, provided that this does not significantly limit the availability of judicial protection. The non-arbitrability of disputes regarding compensation for harm to life and health as provided in the Article 221 of the Russian Civil Procedure Code is not indisputable. De lege lata suggests that the relevant prohibition should be interpreted restrictively and should not apply to claims by patients for compensation for moral damage that are not related to injury. De lege ferenda, it is possible to cancel the above prohibition, provided that the arbitration agreement with the victim is concluded after the injury has been inflicted. Partial arbitrability of medical disputes can also be achieved in the case of a wider spread of liability insurance for medical service providers by transferring patients' claims to the quality of treatment to the level of disputes over the payment of insurance compensation.

KW - medical malpractice, out-of-court procedures, conciliation, mediation, arbitration court, dispute arbitrability

UR - https://www.mendeley.com/catalogue/d63b2c03-29a9-3a52-aa5e-7803c05027ae/

U2 - 10.61205/S160565900036103-7

DO - 10.61205/S160565900036103-7

M3 - статья

VL - 30

SP - 49

EP - 63

JO - ЖУРНАЛ РОССИЙСКОГО ПРАВА

JF - ЖУРНАЛ РОССИЙСКОГО ПРАВА

SN - 1605-6590

IS - 4

ER -