Malpractice Cases Research Articles

Uncertain Causation, Loss of a Chance and Proportional Liability in Medical Malpractice Cases

Abstract Proving the causal connection between a medical error and the personal injury suffered by a patient might turn out to be very difficult, if not impossible. If the claimant manages to substantiate that connection by reaching the required degree of probability, they will be fully compensated, and if not, they will not be indemnified at all, even though fault has been established on the part of the medical professional. This ‘all-or-nothing’ approach means that slight differences in the degree of probability (values slightly lower versus values slightly higher than the required threshold) result in fundamental differences in the amount of damages. In order to prevent this unjust outcome and to provide at least partial compensation to those who are unable to demonstrate the existence of a causal link, several legal systems resort to the concept of loss of a chance, which redefines the object of legal protection and regards as recoverable loss the lost or diminished chance of avoiding traditionally understood damage (personal injury). Another proposed alternative to the ‘all-or-nothing’ approach is proportional liability based on potential causation. The present contribution examines the advantages and disadvantages of both concepts and discusses the possibility of their application under Polish law.

Network analysis of lawyer referral markets: Evidence from Indiana

AbstractUsing network analysis, we study referrals among plaintiff‐side lawyers handling medical malpractice cases in Indiana. The referral network is stratified, with a few highly connected “hub” firms. Firm connectivity follows a power law distribution—suggesting that new entrants tend to associate with already well‐connected firms, rather than starting a new network. Regression analysis shows that, for a given firm, connectivity (i.e., node degree) in the referral network and being loyal to a smaller number of firms both lead to better outcomes in non‐referred cases. The referral network also became more concentrated over time. The stratification of the market for plaintiff‐side representation is reinforced through these processes.

Medical Malpractice Litigation Following Revision Total Hip and Knee Joint Arthroplasty: A Review of Reported Legal Claims in the U.S. in the Past 20 Years

IntroductionThe increasing incidence of primary total hip (THA) and knee (TKA) arthroplasty has been accompanied by a subsequent rise in revision surgeries. Revision total joint arthroplasty (TJA) is associated with major litigation risk, primarily due to procedural and post-surgical errors. However, the understanding of the causes and outcomes of revision TJA malpractice cases remains unstudied. This study aimed to analyze litigated malpractice claims against orthopaedic surgeons performing revision TJA using a national legal database. MethodsA database was queried for a nationwide analysis of medical malpractice litigation in revision TJA from 2000 to 2023. Data on the time, duration, and locations of the litigations, allegations of surgical negligence, the damages cited, the outcomes of the trials, and indemnities were collected. ResultsOf 110 TJA malpractice cases identified over two decades, 32 cases involving revision THA and TKA surgeries were included in the final analysis. The cases were equally divided between THA and TKA, spanning 16 states, with the highest proportions in New York, Connecticut, and Louisiana. “Procedural error” (28%; n = 9) was the most frequently cited negligence, followed by “post-surgical error” (25%; n = 8) and “failure to treat” (19%; n = 6). The most common damages were “continued pain/mobility limitations” (28%; n = 9) and “infections” (19%; n = 6). Most cases resulted in a verdict for the defense (63%; n = 20). The average indemnity was $5,713,635, with considerable variability. ConclusionThis study presents the leading causes of litigated malpractice claims over the past two decades in the United States in revision TJA as perceived procedural and post-surgical errors, with the most common damages reported being “persistent pain/mobility limitations” and “infections.” Given the rising incidence of revision TJA, orthopaedic surgeons may utilize these trends to better inform patients about the potential risks and outcomes of surgery and mitigate litigation risks.

Examining Nursing Medical Malpractice Cases Related to Medications.

The aim of this study was to analyze medication-related nursing medical malpractice cases to gain insights regarding how malpractice risk can be reduced. The criminal prosecution and verdict of nurse RaDonda Vaught focused attention on the potential medicolegal risk for nurses related to medications. Medication-related medical malpractice cases involving nurses were obtained from a national database. Various attributes of these cases were examined, including contributing factors, injury severity, and case outcomes. Authors identified 231 nursing medication-related medical malpractice cases closed from 2017 to 2021. The most frequent adverse events involved medication administration. Not following policies or protocols was the most common contributing factor. Opioids and epinephrine were the medications most frequently involved in the cases. Indemnity payments were made in 56.3% of the cases, with an average indemnity payment of $366 002. Nursing medication-related medical malpractice cases are relatively uncommon, which may reassure nurses regarding medicolegal risk. Medications and contributing factors involved in the cases suggest patient safety interventions including education related to policies, procedures, and protocols.

The Role of Hospital By Laws in Providing Legal Protection Against Alleged Medical Malpractice at the Padang Panjang City Regional General Hospital

Hospital By Laws (HBL) is an internal hospital rule designed to provide legal protection to both patients and medical personnel. In the context of Padang Panjang Hospital, HBL should function as a reference in resolving medical disputes and maintaining the quality of health services. Based on the analysis of the situation, HBL has not functioned optimally, especially in dealing with cases of alleged medical malpractice. The purpose of this study was to analyze the role of HBL in providing legal protection against alleged medical malpractice at Padang Panjang Hospital, as well as to find obstacles faced in its implementation. The method used is a sociological juridical approach with primary data obtained through interviews with related parties in the hospital, and secondary data from related legal literature. The results of the study show that many cases of alleged malpractice are resolved informally through mediation, without using strict legal procedures based on HBL. Several cases such as misalignment of surgery, incorrect installation of infusions in infants, and negligence in the installation of Nasogastric Tube (NGT) are examples of the weak implementation of HBL at Padang Panjang Hospital. The main obstacle found in the implementation of HBL is the lack of understanding and awareness from hospitals of the importance of HBL as a legal instrument. Dispute resolution is more often carried out through a family approach without involving the formal rules regulated in the HBL. This shows that there is a gap between existing regulations and practices carried out in the field. The supervision mechanism for the implementation of HBL in hospitals has also not run well, so this rule is not functioning as it should. This study suggests the need to strengthen the implementation of HBL at Padang Panjang Hospital through more intensive socialization to all medical personnel and hospital management as well as training on professional ethics and medical service standards. Supervision is needed to ensure that these rules are properly implemented in resolving medical disputes. Padang Panjang Hospital is expected to improve the quality of its services while providing better legal protection for patients.

A broad-spectrum LC-MS/MS method for screening and quantification of 100 analytes in clinical and autopsy blood samples

Liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectrometry (LC-MS) has been tremendously used for screening purposes in forensic toxicology, because of their great adaptability and reasonable time/resource consumption. Herein, a fully validated method based on liquid-liquid extraction (LLE) in human whole blood, by a multiple reaction monitoring (MRM) analysis through LC-MS/MS, is described. The proposed method simultaneously detects 100 analytes (plus three deuterated internal standard compounds) belonging to many different classes, including drugs of abuse, prescription and over-the-counter drugs commonly involved in poisoning and medical malpractice cases in our territory, as well as certain new psychoactive substances (NPS) and toxic substances potentially associated with adverse effects. The optimised LLE employs one extraction step of 200 μL blood using 0.1 M HCl methyl-tert-butyl-ether (MTBE) (acidified with concentrated HCl) proved to be suitable for the extraction of basic and neutral substances; as a reconstitution solvent a mixture of 88:12v/v, 0.1 % formic acid in 10 mM aqueous ammonium acetate, pH 3.5: 0.1 % formic acid in acetonitrile was used, yielding satisfactory recoveries for all analytes. The method was sensitive, showing low LOD/ LOQ for all substances ranging from 0.01 to 5/ 0.05–20 ng/mL, respectively. Linearity ranged between 0.05–500 ng/mL (R2 = 0.9811–0.9995), and the inter- and intra-day precisions ranged between 3–15 % and 7–18 %, respectively. Accuracy was evaluated in terms of percentage recovery, lying within acceptable range. The matrix effect expressed as ion suppression/enhancement of each analyte was in the range ±25 % for all analytes. Post-preparative stability of analytes was higher than 85 %, while no carryover between runs was observed. The developed method has been successfully applied in routine toxicological analyses for the analysis of biological samples from clinical and autopsy cases.

Testicular cancer malpractice trends

ObjectiveMedical and surgical advancements have been made in testicular cancer management over the past 50 years. The evolution of practice standards is expected to provide patients benefits in quality of life and oncologic outcomes, but changes in care standards can introduce potential opportunities for increased malpractice claims against providers. We seek to evaluate if modifications in testicular cancer management have translated to a rise in malpractice lawsuits. MethodsA retrospective review of testicular cancer malpractice cases within the Google Scholar Case Law database was performed from January 1, 1975, to January 1, 2024. ResultsOf 102 cases initially screened, 24 were identified after duplicates were excluded and cases irrelevant to malpractice litigation in testicular cancer patients. Most cases were related to delays in diagnosis or treatment (n = 21, 87.5%). Two cases (8.3%) were in response to complications from radiation treatment, and 1 case (4.2%) was a suit in response to the loss of semen specimen for fertility preservation after testicular cancer diagnosis. No malpractice claims were filed in response to surveillance practices or surgical techniques utilized for retroperitoneal lymph node dissection. ConclusionsDespite the adoption of changes in testicular cancer management and ongoing controversies in care, an increase in malpractice lawsuits in response to changing paradigms in testicular cancer was not seen.

Medical Malpractice in Otolaryngology within the United States: A LexisNexis-Based Demographic Analysis.

Otolaryngologists are at a significantly greater risk of being sued than most other physicians. To date, there is a lack of studies characterizing trends in otolaryngology malpractice claims. To assess these trends and risk variables, this study examined malpractice claims against otolaryngologists. Retrospective database review. LexisNexis Jury Verdicts and Settlements. The LexisNexis legal database was used to locate jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice in otolaryngology, from 2018 to 2024. The study did not include any claims covered by the Social Security Disability Insurance, Workers' Compensation, Healthcare Law, or Criminal Law and Procedure categories. Temporal trends were evaluated, and logistic regression was used to identify independent risk factors. Out of 903 items, 79 reported malpractice cases were included (mean age 44.5; 60.3% female). The most sued subspecialty was head and neck oncology (32.5%). Negligence (93.7%) was the primary cause of action. Of cases sent to the jury, 87.7% of them resulted in a verdict in favor of the defendant. The mean plaintiff verdict payout was $7,432,508.06 and the mean identified settlement amount was $1,562,500.00. Physical injury (62.0%) was the highest type of harm. Regional analysis indicated a higher percentage of cases from New York favored the defendant (21.1% vs 13.6%; P = .034). This study highlights key trends in otolaryngology malpractice claims, emphasizing the prevalence in cases of head and neck surgery, primarily attributed to negligence. By identifying trends and risk factors, otolaryngologists can get a better understanding of the dynamics surrounding malpractice.

Individual differences and counterfactual thinking

ABSTRACT The study explored the impact of reasoning capabilities and five personality dimensions, measured by the 16PF-5 (extraversion, anxiety, self-control, tough-mindedness, independence), on counterfactuals and responsibility attribution in judicial cases. The authors hypothesised that individual differences in these personality traits predicted the direction, magnitude, and content of counterfactuals and responsibility judgments. The main results showed that Anxiety (positively) and Self-Control (negatively) predicted downward counterfactual judgments in a medical malpractice case, whereas people with high reasoning capabilities generated upward counterfactual in an assault case. Perfectionism positively predicted an upward direction independently of the scenarios. Extraversion and reasoning capabilities predicted the attribution of responsibility to the victim, whereas Anxiety and Tough-Mindedness predicted responsibility to external causes in the medical malpractice case. For the assault case, Self-Control predicted both the attribution of responsibility to the agent and to external causes. Results were discussed considering implications of counterfactuals in the judicial field.

Resolution Of Cases Of Alleged Malpractice Of Bidan In Supporting Birth In Hospitals By Penal Mediation (Case Study Of Alleged Midwife Malpractice In A Cirebon Regency Hospital)

Malpractice is an error of medical personnel in carrying out their profession that is not in accordance with professional standards and standard operating procedures, resulting in the patient receiving serious injuries, disabilities, and even death. This study aims to analyze the factors that cause the alleged malpractice of midwives in assisting childbirth and the settlement of cases of alleged malpractice with penal mediation. In this study, the method used is a normative juridical approach that involves analyzing the applicable laws related to malpractice cases by midwives as well as reviewing recent cases, with the use of secondary data collection techniques focused on literature review. The results of this study conclude that the main factor in the occurrence of malpractice in midwives is the existence of errors in the form of both negligence and culpa caused by carelessness. The settlement of alleged malpractice cases with penal mediation is a settlement of cases outside the court by bringing together the parties involved, one of the alternative solutions is Penal Mediation. These findings can provide a deeper understanding of the application of responsibility in the context of alleged malpractice by midwives and can contribute to the improvement of legal norms that are more effective in dealing with these problems. The implications of the results of this study are expected to serve as a guide for the authorities, legal practitioners, and the public in facing and understanding the challenges associated with alleged malpractice cases involving midwives.

Law Enforcement in Medical Malpractice Cases in The Protection of Doctors’ Rights: Case Study Tonsil Surgery Causing Brainstem Death in a Child Patient

This study aims to determine the regulations related to the protection of the professional rights of a doctor who is often suspected of committing medical malpractice in carrying out health services. In this study, the author analyzes the rules of malpractice based on positive law in Indonesia, then the author analyzes the liability carried out by the doctor’s profession in suspected malpractice in this study the author takes a case study related to tonsil surgery which caused BA’s child patient to experience brain death at the Kartika Husada, Bekasi Hospital. The method used by the author in this research uses normative or dogmatic research methods, which use documents laws, and regulations related to the issues studied and secondary data sources in the form of books and related journals. The results of the research in this case study conclude that there is no single rule that protects the rights of a doctor who is accused of committing malpractice, neglecting these rules only protects the interests of the patient, then the responsibility for the accusation of malpractice must go through the process of proof first, by the provisions of the elements of malpractice both in terms of criminal and civil law, and based on the case study that has been researched by the author, it is concluded that the efforts in dispute resolution made by the family of BA’s child patient who has died, are appropriate with the family by withdrawing the police report and carrying out peaceful efforts in the form of mediation with the hospital.

Defining the process of malpractice claims and indemnity payments

Medical malpractice is defined as an omission or act that deviates significantly from the norms of medical practice and leads to harm or injury to the patient. The key legal elements of medical malpractice are 1) the presence of a patient-doctor relationship, 2) failure to meet a standard-of-care, 3) evidence of injury relating directly from sub-standard care, and 4) harm relating to that injury. If a patient feels as though they have been a victim of a medical error, the first step in the process of beginning a claim is that the patient/plaintiff will consult with an attorney who specializes in malpractice. If the case is determined to be valid, a suit can be filed to initiate a pre-discovery and deposition process. During the discovery process, information is gathered through interrogatories, requests for disclosure, requests for production, requests for admission, expert reports, and depositions. The pre-trial process generally culminates in a deposition. This step involves a formal proceeding whereby the physician provides a recorded testimony under oath, which may be used in the future if the suit is brought to court. Following this process, suits can be dropped, settled, or end in the pursuit of a trial. When a defendant is found liable in a medical malpractice case, the plaintiff is entitled to indemnity payments in proportion to the harm and damages associated with the malpractice case. Indemnity payments are expected to cover various damages, including economic, non-economic, and less often punitive damages. Economic damages include tangible medical costs, like medical bills, future medical care, lost wages, and future lost wages associated with the injury or disability resulting from the malpractice event.

Medical malpractice in organ transplantation: public allegations and key legal outcomes.

Despite significant advances in surgical techniques and patient outcomes, organ transplantation (OT) remains fraught with legal challenges and ethical dilemmas. This study aims to address the notable gap in literature on malpractice claims specifically related to OT, providing insights into litigation trends, outcomes, and implications for medical practice and patient care. We retrospectively queried the Verdictsearch database from 1988 to 2023, and captured malpractice claims involving several organs. Data on demographics, organ types, and litigation outcomes were collected to compare compensation across different categories of malpractice and patient outcomes. Out of 292 malpractice cases identified, 62 met inclusion criteria, distributed across 19 states with kidney being the most implicated organ (46.8%). Defendants prevailed in 53.2% of cases, while settlements were reached in 29.0%, and plaintiffs won in 16.1% of cases. Surgical errors and complications were the most frequent allegations, followed by medication and treatment errors. The median compensation for deceased plaintiffs was significantly higher ($1,300,000) compared to living plaintiffs at litigation initiation ($128,000). Our study sheds light on the challenges and trends in malpractice litigation within the field of OT. By identifying key areas of concern and the influence of patient outcomes on litigation resolution, this study offers valuable insights for healthcare providers, legal practitioners, and policymakers aimed at enhancing patient safety, reducing litigation risks, and fostering a deeper understanding of the ethical and legal complexities in OT.

Perception and practices of obstetricians and ophthalmologists eye diseases during pregnancy

Aims: Cesarean delivery can be crucial for both the mother and the baby, with indications often stemming from fetal or maternal health concerns. In addition to obstetric factors, non-obstetric conditions such as eye diseases frequently necessitate cesarean delivery. Among the eye diseases commonly encountered during pregnancy are refractive errors, diabetic retinopathy, ocular malignancies, and glaucoma. Some of these conditions may exacerbate during pregnancy due to related health issues like diabetes or hypertension, or they may be aggravated by the stress of vaginal labor. Consequently, the decision regarding the continuation of pregnancy, the mode of delivery, and even the choice of anesthesia can vary depending on the specific eye disease and its severity or characteristics. The aim of this study was to assess the knowledge and attitudes of obstetricians regarding the management of pregnant women with different eye conditions, with the ultimate goal of increasing awareness among obstetricians. Methods: In this study, a total of 46 obstetricians and 30 ophthalmologists practicing in Turkiye were included. Participants were surveyed to gather information, as no existing survey or scale pertaining to our study subject was available. Therefore, a novel survey form was developed based on previous studies addressing similar topics, and this survey was administered to all participants. Results: During the study, both obstetricians and ophthalmologists were queried about the management of 17 distinct eye diseases occurring during pregnancy. Ophthalmologists advocated for normal vaginal delivery (NVD) in 13 out of the 17 eye diseases. On the other hand, obstetricians opted for NVD in 5 out of the 17 cases, while recommending ophthalmology consultation in 12 out of the 17 scenarios. Conclusion: It has been noted that ophthalmologists suggest vaginal birth in 9 out of 17 eye diseases, whereas obstetricians tend to recommend consulting ophthalmologists rather than making independent decisions. This trend may stem from the fact that obstetricians may lack sufficient knowledge about eye diseases, as these conditions are not primarily within the scope of pregnancy-related care. Additionally, obstetricians might be inclined to share responsibility, possibly due to the rise in malpractice cases against obstetricians in recent years in Turkiye.

Dissecting Patterns of Hospital Civil Liability in Medical Disputes: Between Vicarious Liability and Central

This research discusses the civil liability of hospitals in Indonesia in the context of medical malpractice. The purpose of this study is to explore the application of the principles of vicarious liability and corporate responsibility in the civil liability of hospitals for the acts of doctors working under the auspices of the hospital. The research method involves analyzing legal documents and medical malpractice cases in Indonesia. The results show that hospitals in Indonesia can be sued for damages for the acts or mistakes of their workers and agents as well as for their own mistakes. The principle of vicarious liability emphasizes that hospitals can be held liable for errors or omissions committed by doctors, nurses, or other medical personnel while they are serving under the auspices of the hospital. This research also shows that hospitals should ensure compliance with applicable regulations and procedures and conduct effective risk management to reduce the likelihood of medical disputes and the potential financial impact that could arise from legal claims. The contribution of this study is in improving the understanding of the legal liability of hospitals in medical malpractice cases and providing guidance for hospitals in developing and implementing better policies and procedures to reduce the risk of medical errors. The recommendation of this study is that hospitals should ensure that all their medical staff adhere to established medical standards and conduct effective risk management to reduce the likelihood of medical disputes and the potential financial impact that could arise from legal claims.

Dealing with Evidence in Dental Professional Liability Lawsuits-General Recommendations for Dental Expert Witness Work Using the Example of Germany: A Narrative Review.

Dental treatment can lead to disputes between patients and dentists, which are then brought before the civil courts as medical malpractice cases. The court regularly commissions a dental expert to answer questions of evidence in court. In the majority of cases, the expert is able to answer these questions based on his professional expertise and practical experience. In order to make the assessment comprehensible and credible for the judge and the parties, it can be helpful and reasonable to cite relevant literature references from dental textbooks and specialist journals. In individual cases, it may be necessary to carry out a systematic literature search on specific topics. Based on the situation in Germany, this narrative review makes recommendations of how to perform a literature search and make citations specifically for expert opinions that are generally applicable independent of national jurisdiction.

From Operating Room to Courtroom: Analyzing Malpractice Trajectories in Cranial Neurosurgery.

Nearly all neurosurgeons in the United States will be named defendants in a malpractice claim before retirement. We perform an assessment of national malpractice trends in cranial neurosurgery to inform neurosurgeons on current outcomes, trends over time, benchmarks for malpractice coverage needs, and ways to mitigate lawsuits. The Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis databases were searched to identify medical malpractice cases relating to open cranial surgery between 1987 and 2023. Extracted data included date of verdict, jurisdiction, outcome, details of sustained injuries, and any associated award/settlement figures. Of 1550 cases analyzed, 252 were identified as malpractice claims arising from open cranial surgery. The median settlement amount was $950 000 and the average plaintiff ruling was $2 750 000. The highest plaintiff ruling resulted in an award of $28.1 million. Linear regression revealed no significant relationship between year and defendant win (P-value = .43). After adjusting for inflation, award value increased with time (P-value = .01). The most common cranial subspecialties were tumor (67 cases, 26.6%), vascular (54 cases, 21.4%), infection (23 cases, 9.1%), and trauma (23 cases, 9.1%). Perioperative complications was the most common litigation category (96 cases, 38.1%), followed by delayed treatment (40 cases, 15.9%), failure to diagnose (38 cases, 15.1%), and incorrect choice of procedure (29 cases, 11.5%). The states with most claims were New York (40 cases, 15.9%), California (24 cases, 9.5%), Florida (21 cases, 8.3%), and Pennsylvania (20 cases, 7.9%). Although a stable number of cases were won by neurosurgeons, an increase in award sizes was observed in the 37-year period assessed. Perioperative complications and delayed treatment/diagnosis were key drivers of malpractice claims.

An examination of erroneous medical practices in circumcision surgery in light of supreme court decisions.

Global interest in circumcision, one of the oldest and most frequently performed surgical procedures worldwide, continues. There is a significant increase in cases regarding medical malpractice claims in the world and in our country. It is aimed to identify situations that lead to malpractice claims in circumcision surgery, which has question marks regarding its psychological and ethical aspects, to identify situations that are considered errors and professionally risky, and to contribute to eliminating these deficiencies. We examined the Supreme Court appeal decisions related to circumcision malpractice cases resolved between 2012 and 2022, using the keyword "circumcision" on the official website of the Republic of Turkiye Supreme Court. We examined 30 Supreme Court decisions that met our criteria. It was determined that the most common lawsuit was filed due to negligence (43.3%), followed by carelessness (20%) and faulty action (20%). Physical conditions must be appropriate and healthcare personnel must be adequately trained for circumcision, which is frequently performed especially in pediatric patients and is more frequently subject to malpractice lawsuits than other pediatric operations.

The Malpractice Administration Procedure in the Vortex of Crime: An Indonesian Perspective and Its Comparison with Other Countries

Medical malpractice has become a complex issue that extends to criminal law, having serious implications for health practitioners and patients. The legal argument in determining the elements of negligence and medical malpractice is based on the difference in interpretation between ordinary criminal offenses regulated in the KUHP and medical criminal offenses. Th e aim of this study is to explain the theory and legal analysis related to the handling of medical malpractice cases in Indonesia and its comparison with other countries. This research uses normative juridic methods. The outcome of this study is the need for reforms in handling alleged medical malpractice cases in Indonesia by considering the paradigms and concepts of other countries to protect patient rights and improve the quality of health services in reducing the risk of malpractice in Indonesia.

Alternative Settlement of Medical Malpractice Cases in The Perspective of Legal Sociology

Medical malpractice always gets the spotlight or complaints and catches the law enforcement officials as a mistake made by doctors, midwives, nurses, pharmacists or hospitals. In fact, it is not uncommon for cases like this to be exposed in the mass media and other social media, as if the suspect suspected of committing malpractice had indeed committed the act (Media as a Pre-Court). In addition to requiring proof and the opinion of experts in their field, a health practitioner is a noble occupation, so good name is also valuable in carrying out their activities as health practitioners. Cases of suspected medical malpractice are rarely examined in terms of causality (cause and effect), whereas reviewing other actions as a cause and effect of the alleged malpractice is important, which is why it is necessary to use Restorative Justice before taking action, especially in cases of medical malpractice. This paper describes the existence of the Restorative System in the Indonesian judicial system as a concept that is very relevant if used to resolve cases related to health practitioners and good name in carrying out their profession. This paper is conceptual with descriptive analysis method. It can be concluded that the Restorative system in the settlement of Malpractice cases is a way out of the problems and trauma faced by health practitioners as a win-win solution in the face of claims or demands against them.