3:45 PM Abstract No. 122 Malpractice litigation in interventional radiology

Abstract

The litigious nature of the medical-legal system environment is a major concern for American physicians with an estimated cost of $10 billion. In this study we identify the causes of litigation in cases of involving interventional radiologists as well as the factors that contribute to verdicts or settlements resulting in indemnity payments. Publicly available verdict reports were recorded using the Westlaw and Casetext legal databases. To identify pertinent cases we used the search terms “medical malpractice,” “interventional radiologist,” and “interventional radiology” with dates ranging from 1998 to 2019. Cases were evaluated for alleged causes of malpractice, resulting injury, findings and indemnity payment (if any). The database search yielded 450 cases, with 12% of cases (n = 53) involving interventional radiologists as defendants. Of these cases 26.4% were settled out of court (n = 14) and the remaining 73.5% went to trial (n = 39). Of those cases that went to trial 80% saw defense verdicts (n = 31) and 20% saw plaintiff verdicts (n = 8). Overall 22.6% of patients claimed that they did not receive proper informed consent (n = 12) and 88.6% claimed that the procedure was not the proper standard of care (n = 47). The bulk of the cases claimed negligence in clinical performance as the result of treatment failure or postoperative complications. Overall the majority (85%; n = 43) of cases showed judgments in favor of the physician. The main issues that arise in interventional radiology malpractice litigation are those of informed consent and clinical performance. Comprehensive preprocedural counseling, when combined with best practice peri-operative care, may minimize the impact of litigation.