MP16-18 PREDISPOSING FACTORS AND OUTCOMES OF MALPRACTICE LITIGATION FOR CASES OF TESTICULAR TORSION: A LEGAL DATABASE REVIEW

Abstract

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Cost Effectiveness I1 Apr 2015MP16-18 PREDISPOSING FACTORS AND OUTCOMES OF MALPRACTICE LITIGATION FOR CASES OF TESTICULAR TORSION: A LEGAL DATABASE REVIEW Marc A. Colaco, Matthew G. Heavner, Peter L. Sunyaro, and Ryan P. Terlecki Marc A. ColacoMarc A. Colaco More articles by this author , Matthew G. HeavnerMatthew G. Heavner More articles by this author , Peter L. SunyaroPeter L. Sunyaro More articles by this author , and Ryan P. TerleckiRyan P. Terlecki More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.juro.2015.02.825AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES The litigious nature of the American medical environment is a major concern for physicians with an estimated annual cost of $10 billion in legal and settlement fees. This cost is particularly important for disease states that present urgently as the chaotic nature of the emergency department can lead to medical errors and subsequent lawsuits. Additionally, many states extend the statute of limitations and the cap for non-economic damages in cases involving the reproductive system. The purpose of this study is to identify causes of litigation in cases of testicular torsion as well as what factors contribute to verdicts or settlements resulting in indemnity payments. METHODS Publicly available federal and local jury verdict reports were retrieved from the Westlaw legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY). In order to identify pertinent cases we used the search terms “medical malpractice” and “testicular torsion” with date ranging from 2000 to 2013. Jury verdicts, depositions, and narrative summaries were evaluated for their medical basis, alleged malpractice, resulting injury, findings and indemnity payment (if any). RESULTS A total of 87 cases were identified on initial review with 52 that were relevant to this study. 51% of relevant cases were found in favor of the defendant physician with the remaining 49% involving an indemnity payment (13% of which were settled before verdict). The most commonly sued medical providers were emergency physicians (48% of defendants) while urologists only made up 23% of the defendant pool. In cases where data regarding the use of ultrasound was available, ultrasound was not used in 72% of cases, but there was no significant difference in rate of successful defense between ultrasound users and nonusers. Finally, the only case with a verdict decision for the plaintiff against a urologist was when the defendant was a urology resident: 100% of verdicts for the plaintiff involved cases where an attending urologist was not directly involved in the patient's care. CONCLUSIONS Testicular torsion is a delicate condition and requires expertise in evaluation and treatment. When emergency physicians choose not to consult a urologist for possible torsion, they leave themselves open to the risk of litigation. Furthermore, although cases lacking ultrasound evaluation are much more commonly seen in litigation, merely getting an ultrasound is not a guarantee for success against litigation. Finally, when a urologist is involved in torsion litigation, they are rarely unsuccessful in their defense. © 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 193Issue 4SApril 2015Page: e174 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2015 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Marc A. Colaco More articles by this author Matthew G. Heavner More articles by this author Peter L. Sunyaro More articles by this author Ryan P. Terlecki More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...