In the specific context of evaluating whether or not juries do a good job of making decisions in medical-malpractices cases (which is different from this articl

In the specific context of evaluating whether or not juries do a good job of making decisions in medical-malpractices cases (which is different from this article about glyphosate I think??), I'm confused about your interpretation of these two findings: > The insurers had medical doctors closely examine the medical records in cases involving claims of medical negligence to determine if medical negligence had occurred. Tarragin et al. [31] compared these judgments with verdicts rendered by juries if the case went to trial. The jury verdicts tended to be consistent with the medical judgments. > Those authors found that the jury verdicts favored the hospital in all cases that the hospital had rated as not-negligent. Would those articles' findings also be consistent with the following hypotheses? (1) Physicians tend to give their colleagues the benefit of the doubt, applying empathy and excusing neglect in borderline cases of negligence. (2) Hospitals tend to issue findings of negligence which protect their employees, preferring to retain staff with otherwise positive job performance in borderline cases of negligence. (3) Juries tend to trust the opinions of hospitals and doctors who say that other doctors were not negligent, more than they tend to trust experts who say the opposite.