Malpractice Cases Research Articles

A Case of Medical Malpractice; Misdiagnosis of Methamphetamine-related Cardiac Complications

Background: Professional neglect is a civil responsibility for any specialist or individual with a specific skill, including therapists, and is not limited to any particular profession. Case Presentation: A man 41-year-old drug abuser was diagnosed with a heart problem due to methamphetamine abuse. Despite his drug history, he was once admitted to the emergency room for chest pain, where acetaminophen and diazepam were prescribed. For the second time, he went to another medical center due to continued chest pain, and due to the suspicion of contracting COVID-19, a CT scan of the chest was performed, yielding negative results, and then he was discharged. The patient was found deceased in his bed the following day. An autopsy revealed a thinned heart wall, subendocardial hemorrhages, and severe atherosclerosis. Methamphetamine, amphetamine, and acetaminophen were detected in urine samples, and ethanol was detected in blood and vitreous humor samples. Conclusion: The case highlights the importance of medical negligence in treating patients with drug abuse.

450 Inflammatory Brachial Plexitis Mimics Postoperative Iatrogenic Neurological Deficits

INTRODUCTION: A common cause of neurosurgical malpractice cases is the misrepresentation of idiopathic brachial neuritis (incidence: 1/1000) as an iatrogenic neurological insult caused by a surgeon. METHODS: Confirmed postprocedural brachial neuritis patients from a single quaternary care institution were identified and analyzed. RESULTS: We identified 6 (3 female) postprocedural brachial neuritis patients with mean age 63.7 (range 50-75) years. Procedures included 5 cervical spine surgeries (3 multilevel ACDFs, 2 multilevel posterior fusions with laminectomies, 1 multilevel disc arthroplasty) and 1 intrajugular central venous catheter placement. Average time to symptom onset was 1 week post-procedure (range 1 day-2.5 weeks). Initial symptom was moderate-to-severe shoulder (5), arm (4), and/or neck (1) pain. Subsequently, all developed axillary/shoulder weakness; 3 distal arm/hand weakness, 2 winged scapula, and 2 dyspnea/orthopnea. For diagnosis, two patients had confirmatory EMG, 1 had MR neurography confirming plexus inflammation, and 3 had both (positive EMG findings and inflammation on MR Neurography). Average time to accurate diagnosis was 3.1 (range 1.5-5) months. Average number of clinicians seen prior to accurate diagnosis: 5. Treatments included opioids (5), steroids (1), and/or physical therapy (6). All experienced partial pain relief by 1-8 weeks; 2 had persistent pain requiring gabapentin past 6 months. All patients continued to experience motor deficits past 6 months: (4 patients had atrophy and 2-4/5 motor strength in proximal the proximal arm, 1 had distal arm 3/5 motor strength, and 1 had scapular winging). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative idiopathic brachial plexitis mimics iatrogenic nerve damage following neurosurgical procedures. Recognition of this entity is difficult, and 6 patients at our institution saw on average 5 providers over 3 months prior to accurate diagnosis. Brachial plexitis has a prolonged course with typically only partial recovery at 6 months.

Navigating the Litigation Experience.

Healthcare is a highly regulated industry whose practitioners are responsible for adhering to laws, regulations, policies, and standards of care. When poor outcomes occur, a malpractice case can arise, thus beginning the litigation process. Because nurses are leaders in the delivery of care, they may become involved in legal claims. The purpose of this article is to provide information, as a foundation for nurses who are unfamiliar with navigating the litigation process in a legal claim, and to help nurses build confidence in the process. An overview of the litigation process, nursing licensure, and essential legal terms is provided. A case scenario is introduced that addresses the role of a nurse in an orthopaedic medical malpractice case.

Dental malpractice lawsuit in the madinah region

BackgroundThe number of reports of dental malpractice cases has been increasing in recent years. The purpose of this study was to assess the data and outcomes related to dental malpractice claims in Madina City, Saudi Arabia. MethodsThis study conducts a retrospective study of dental malpractice claims in Madina city, Saudi Arabia assessing 97 cases of dental malpractice claims from the year 2016 to 2022. Resultsthe study showed that the highest percentage of cases (29.9%) were reported guilty in the year 2021. with the highest number of claims (30%) related to the prosthodontic specialty. Most of the cases were against general practitioners (64.9%). Most of the cases (71.1%) lacked signed informed consent. ConclusionTo decrease the number of dental claims, valuing specialties and obtaining informed consent should be considered by all dentists.

Perlindungan Hukum Terhadap Dokter Dalam Melakukan Praktik Kedokteran Terkait Dengan Dugaan Pelanggaran Disiplin Yang Berdampak Terhadap Malpraktik

Malpractice can be interpreted as an act of negligence, error or a doctor's lack of ability to treat a patient so that it causes a bad outcome for the patient. Several malpractice cases that ended in decisions that did not blame the doctor and sanctions that were considered light were one of the things that made some people think that this law was not at all in favor of malpractice cases. Several doctors questioned how legal certainty would be for them if the Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council (MKDKI) had decided that no disciplinary violations had been committed but the district court said otherwise. So, according to the author, it is necessary to carry out an analysis regarding the severity of the sanctions imposed by the Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council and what the legal protection is for doctors who are suspected of practicing medicine related to disciplinary violations. This research uses the juridical-normative method, namely research conducted by examining the laws and regulations that apply or are applied to a particular legal issue. Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council has the authority to handle violations of doctor's discipline. If there is a doctor's action that is classified as malpractice, Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council can only be guided by a doctor's disciplinary violation. Disciplinary sanctions for doctors by the MKDKI include giving a written warning, recommending revocation of the STR or SIP and the obligation to take part in education or training at a medical/dental educational institution. The Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council decision does not preclude the possibility for the doctor concerned to be examined, processed or sued criminally or civilly, because the Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council decision has nothing to do with the application of law and criminal or civil legal sanctions and is basically a complaint, examination, up to the the Indonesian Medical Discipline Honorary Council decision or a public report. against doctors suspected of committing ethical violations is only limited to the ethics of the medical profession itself, which cannot be confused with the investigation process at the police, the prosecution process at the Prosecutor's Office until the court, or the lawsuit process at court.

AI and professional liability assessment in healthcare. A revolution in legal medicine?

The adoption of advanced artificial intelligence (AI) systems in healthcare is transforming the healthcare-delivery landscape. Artificial intelligence may enhance patient safety and improve healthcare outcomes, but it presents notable ethical and legal dilemmas. Moreover, as AI streamlines the analysis of the multitude of factors relevant to malpractice claims, including informed consent, adherence to standards of care, and causation, the evaluation of professional liability might also benefit from its use. Beginning with an analysis of the basic steps in assessing professional liability, this article examines the potential new medical-legal issues that an expert witness may encounter when analyzing malpractice cases and the potential integration of AI in this context. These changes related to the use of integrated AI, will necessitate efforts on the part of judges, experts, and clinicians, and may require new legislative regulations. A new expert witness will be likely necessary in the evaluation of professional liability cases. On the one hand, artificial intelligence will support the expert witness; however, on the other hand, it will introduce specific elements into the activities of healthcare workers. These elements will necessitate an expert witness with a specialized cultural background. Examining the steps of professional liability assessment indicates that the likely path for AI in legal medicine involves its role as a collaborative and integrated tool. The combination of AI with human judgment in these assessments can enhance comprehensiveness and fairness. However, it is imperative to adopt a cautious and balanced approach to prevent complete automation in this field.

Strategies to Reduce Missed Fracture Diagnoses: Insights from Medical Malpractice Cases in China.

Strategies to Reduce Missed Fracture Diagnoses: Insights from Medical Malpractice Cases in China.

A machine learning-based predictive model of causality in orthopaedic medical malpractice cases in China.

To explore the feasibility and validity of machine learning models in determining causality in medical malpractice cases and to try to increase the scientificity and reliability of identification opinions. We collected 13,245 written judgments from PKULAW.COM, a public database. 963 cases were included after the initial screening. 21 medical and ten patient factors were selected as characteristic variables by summarising previous literature and cases. Random Forest, eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) and Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) were used to establish prediction models of causality for the two data sets, respectively. Finally, the optimal model is obtained by hyperparameter tuning of the six models. We built three real data set models and three virtual data set models by three algorithms, and their confusion matrices differed. XGBoost performed best in the real data set, with a model accuracy of 66%. In the virtual data set, the performance of XGBoost and LightGBM was basically the same, and the model accuracy rate was 80%. The overall accuracy of external verification was 72.7%. The optimal model of this study is expected to predict the causality accurately.

Professional activity of medical staff and attendant risks

The article presents results of a retrospective analysis of the commission forensic medical examinations of «medical malpractice cases» for 2017-2021 on materials of RCFME MH KR. It has been established that the number of commission examinations showed a pronounced tendency to increase in the analyzed period: 64 (9.78%) cases - in 2017, 86 (12.63%) - in 2018, 92 (16.46%) - in 2019, 179 (29.1%) - in 2020 and 80 (13.96%) in 2021 out of 501 cases of commission examinations on «medical malpractice cases». The considerable number of ordered examinations concerned the professional activity of obstetricians-gynecologists (131 cases; 26.1%) and surgeons (65 cases; 12.9%). Quite a large part of the examinations was represented by investigations regarding COVID-19 (72 cases; 14.37%) and AIDS infection (47 cases; 9.3%) among the commission examinations. Medical violations also concerned specialists who are not related to extreme medicine (tuberculosis specialists, oncologists, therapists, neurologists).

Hospital Legal Liability In Medical Dispute Resolution (Case Study Of South Jakarta District Court Decision Number 484/PDT.G/2013/PN.JKT.Sel)

This research was conducted to determine the cause of negligence committed by medical personnel, and how to resolve medical disputes by analyzing the South Jakarta District Court Decision Number 484/Pdt.G/2013/PN.JKT.Sel. Further research was carried out by looking at the case related to the legal liability of hospitals for the negligence of their medical personnel by reviewing the Civil Code, Law Number 26 of 2009 concerning Health, Law Number 44 of 2009 concerning Hospitals, Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning the Practice of Medicine, Law Number 36 of 2014 concerning Health Workers, and other related laws and regulations. It then examines whether or not the judge is appropriate in deciding a malpractice case. This research uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach, a conceptual approach, and a case approach. The result of this study is that the legal relationship between hospitals, doctors, and patients gives birth to rights and obligations for the parties based on the therapeutic agreement that has been regulated in Article 46 of Law Number 44 of 2009 concerning Hospitals, so that patients receive legal protection due to alleged malpractice committed by medical personnel, in this case doctors with the current laws and regulations

The Limits Access of Medical Records in Indonesia and a Broader Propose to Support Patients in Malpractice Claims

Objective: This study aims to describe the deficiency of the regulations governing medical records access in Indonesia as well as its impacts on proofing malpractice claims and propose a broader scope of the access from the personal data privacy rights perspective.
 
 Methods: It uses a normative legal approach to analyse qualitatively the Indonesian Health Laws regarding access of medical records, related case law on malpractice, and existing literature on personal data privacy rights.
 
 Result: The result shows that the Indonesian Health Law limits access to data in medical records, namely only the right to request a medical data resume. The research also found that in five malpractice cases, the lack of access to medical records hindered patients’ ability to present evidence.
 
 Conclusion: It concludes that limited access to medical records leaves patients vulnerable to abuse, including the alteration of their data and difficulties in proving malpractice. The research contribute a proposal to granting patients greater access to their medical records to view and control their data at any time to ensure its authenticity, and to present it as a strong evident in malpractice’ claims.

The perplexities of E-Discovery in the Indian healthcare system - A narrative review  

With the rapid advances in medical technology and the digitization of healthcare systems, the importance of collecting and analyzing digital evidence in the medical field has grown significantly. This evidence plays a crucial role in investigating medical malpractice cases and preparing for legal proceedings in India. As medical devices and electronic health records become more prevalent, vast amounts of data are generated, stored, and accessed. While having substantial evidence to support medical claims is beneficial, it is essential to find a balance between retrieving and admitting digital evidence while respecting patient privacy. This article examines the use of electronic evidence in Indian medical litigation, the challenges it presents, and the initiatives taken to manage these challenges. However, the absence of clear legal guidelines on electronic discovery in medical cases exacerbates the problem. Medical procedure rules often fail to address electronic discovery, resulting in inconsistent case law across different courts in India and the world. Consequently, healthcare practitioners are left to develop ad hoc solutions through informal discussions and negotiations. Thus, this paper highlights the necessity for a comprehensive legal framework and active judicial management to handle electronic discovery in the medical domain.

Alleged Malpractice in Orthopedic Surgery in The Netherlands: Lessons Learned from Medical Disciplinary Jurisprudence.

Orthopedic surgery is a specialty at risk for medical malpractice claims. We aimed to assess the frequency of alleged malpractice cases related to orthopedic surgery in the Netherlands from the last 15 years. We systematically searched the database of the Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court for verdicts related to orthopedic surgery between January 2009 and July 2023 and extracted case data and data on allegations and outcomes. We identified 158 verdicts (mean of 10.5 per year), of which 151 (96%) were filed against specialists and 7 (4%) against residents. Cases were most frequently classified as incorrect treatment/diagnosis (n = 107, 67.7%). Cases were related to the subspecialties of knee (n = 34, 21.5%), hip (n = 31, 19.6%), ankle (n = 25, 15.8%), spine (n = 22, 13.9%), and shoulder (n = 19, 12.0%). A total of 32 cases (20.3%) were judged as partially founded and 9 (6%) as founded. The Dutch Medical Disciplinary Court imposed 28 warnings, 10 reprimands, and 3 temporary suspensions. A total of 68 appeals were submitted, of which 95% were rejected for filing patients. In three instances, unfounded verdicts were changed to two warnings and a reprimand. In four appeals by an orthopedic surgeon, a warning and reprimand were dismissed, and two reprimands were changed to warnings. The amount of malpractice cases against orthopedic surgeons in the Netherlands is relatively low. The cases in our study may improve our understanding of allegations against physicians and improve the quality of patient care.

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to spinal cord stimulator

Study designRetrospective cohort study. IntroductionMalpractice claims analysis is performed by several specialties to improve quality of patient care and to identify areas where physicians can improve their practice to mitigate the incidence of committing malpractice. The Food and Drug Administration has flagged over 80,000 injuries caused by spinal cord stimulator (SCS), making them the 3rd most flagged medical device. This study analyzed malpractice claims due to SCS by querying two legal databases widely used in medicolegal research. MethodsWestlaw Edge and VerdictSearch were queried for malpractice cases filed between the years 2000 and 2022 using the keywords “spinal cord stimulator.” Case inclusion criteria was defined as a plaintiff's basis of litigation resting on a claim of medical malpractice due to SCS. Additional data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff sex and age, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of the filed claim, payment or settlement amount, and sustained injuries. ResultOf the 1773 reviewed cases, 45 cases were included and categorized as battery or implantable pulse generator malfunction (35.56 %), lead complications (28.89 %), surgical complications (20.00 %), and miscellaneous (15.56 %). Four (8.89 %) cases resulted in settlement, 11 (24.44 %) in a plaintiff verdict, and 30 (68.00 %) resulted in a defendant verdict. Claims filed due to infection related to SCS were more likely to result in a defendant verdict (p = .047), whereas claims filed due to neurological deficit were more likely to result in a plaintiff verdict (p = .020). The average settlement amount for the 4 cases is $1,975,309.61. ConclusionOur findings suggest obtaining adequate neuroimaging preoperatively with MRIs, disclosing neurological risks specifically paralysis on informed consent, and evaluating radiography intraoperative and postoperatively with anterior-posterior (AP) and lateral x-ray films to ensure proper SCS placement are practices that may mitigate malpractice due to SCS. Battery defects and lead complications were the most common grounds for SCS-related malpractice claims.

Malpractice litigation after thyroid surgery: What factors favor surgeons?

BackgroundLitigation impacts physicians financially, reputationally, and professionally. Although thyroid surgery has favorable patient outcomes, litigation persists. We aimed to characterize malpractice claims after thyroidectomy and investigate which factors favor physicians. MethodsWe queried the Westlaw legal database using the terms “thyroidectomy” and “medical malpractice” to identify malpractice cases brought against surgeons from 1949 to 2022. We collected and analyzed demographic; clinical; surgical; and legal data, including year, cause for initiating litigation, verdict, state where the lawsuit was brought, and the state’s tort reform status. ResultsOf the 68 cases included, medical negligence was the most common cause of action, followed by failure to provide adequate informed consent. The most common inciting surgical event was recurrent laryngeal nerve injury (n = 34, 50%). Surgeons prevailed more often overall (n = 53, 77.9%) and in 11 (91.7%) of the 12 cases treated at academic institutions. The 3 endocrine surgery fellowship-trained surgeons all prevailed in their cases. Of the 15 cases in which patients prevailed, 12 (80%) of which were decided by a jury, the median damages awarded were $569,668 (interquartile range $341,146–$2,594,050). In the 53 cases won by surgeons, 26 were jury decisions (49.1%). Surgeons prevailed in 87.5% of cases brought in the 24 states with tort reform and in 72.7% in the 44 states without tort reform. ConclusionNon-jury cases and operations done at academic institutions appear to favor decisions for the defendant. Although not statistically significant, all endocrine surgery fellowship-trained defendants won. Where tort reforms are in place, surgeons tend to prevail.

Legal Protection for Victims of Medical Malpractice during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Study on Legislation

This study examines the forms of legal protection available for victims of medical malpractice. This study uses normative legal research with a statute approach. The collected legal material is then qualitatively analyzed to describe the problem and answer the study objectives. The results show that the complexity of health service provision during the COVID-19 pandemic increases the risk of errors and medical malpractice. The Government has established a series of legal protections, including civil, criminal, and administrative, to facilitate victims of medical malpractice claim their rights. Civil legal protection ensures patients’ rights to seek compensation through out-of-court dispute resolution, such as negotiation, mediation, and arbitration. Meanwhile, criminal legal protection regulated punishments such as imprisonment or a fine for doctors proven guilty of medical malpractice. On the other hand, administrative legal protection provides a complaint mechanism for patients, ensuring that the Government and Honorary Council will impose administrative sanctions on doctors proven guilty of medical malpractice. Therefore, it is recommended that the Government continue strengthening and enhancing public awareness regarding patients’ rights and the available legal protection mechanisms, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. This role is crucial for empowering the community to protect themselves from potential medical malpractice. Furthermore, healthcare personnel should be given maximum support through adequate facilities and equipment provision, as well as capacity enhancement through ongoing training and education, to enable them to provide optimal health services in the face of this pandemic challenge. In addition, there needs to be a strengthening of the monitoring system and legislation to prevent and effectively handle medical malpractice cases.

Bariatric Surgery and Malpractice: an Extensive Review of Demographics, Complications, Litigation, and Proactive Mitigation Strategies.

The rising prevalence of severe obesity has led to a parallel increase in bariatric surgeries, raising a complex array of medicolegal issues. This review aims to analyze and synthesize literature on bariatric surgery malpractice, focusing on patient demographics, surgical complications, litigation costs, and the nature of malpractice cases. A systematic search was conducted across multiple databases for relevant studies published up to May 2023. Our review endeavors to provide insights into these medicolegal challenges and their implications and foster an informed dialogue on strategies for their effective management. By doing so, we hope to enhance ethical and legally sound bariatric practices, safeguarding both patient welfare and surgical practitioners from legal repercussions.

Analysis of Medical Malpractice Claims Involving Interventional Radiologists: A Comprehensive Analysis From Two National Legal Databases

PurposeThe nature of lawsuits involving interventional radiologists (IRs) is not well understood. The purposes of this article are to provide an overview of the causes of action underlying medical malpractice lawsuits related to IRs and to characterize the associated factors and outcomes. MethodsTwo large legal databases were used to search for US legal cases in which there were jury awards and settlements involving IRs in the United States. Cases were screened to include only those cases in which the cause of action involved negligence on the part of IRs. ResultsA total of 389 published case summaries were identified, of which 93 were eligible to be included in the analysis. In 46% of the cases (43 of 93), medical malpractice was alleged against an individual IR, whereas in 43% (40 of 93), it was alleged against both an individual IR and a health care institution. Thirty-five percent of IR malpractice cases (33 of 93) involved the performance of a vascular procedure, most commonly embolization procedures (30% [n = 10]), stenting or angioplasty (21% [n = 7]), and diagnostic arteriography and angiography (18% [n = 6]). Twenty-six percent of cases (24 of 93) involved IR performance of a biopsy. Eighteen percent of cases (17 of 93) involved a failure to gain informed consent in addition to an allegation of medical negligence during treatment. Eleven percent of cases (10 of 93) were resolved by settlement, with an average settlement amount of $877,500 (range, $200,000-$2,700,000). Among the 72 cases that went to trial, 74% (53 of 72) resulted in judgments for the defendants, and 26% (19 of 72) resulted in judgements for the plaintiffs, with an average award of $2,012,243 (range, $101,667-$6,400,000). ConclusionsVascular procedures and biopsies were the most frequent reasons for malpractice lawsuits involving IRs. Failure to gain informed consent in addition to an allegation of medical negligence during treatment was not infrequent. Although the majority of published medical malpractice claims involving IRs resulted in judgments in favor of the defendants, the average amount awarded to plaintiffs was higher compared with previous data reported for all physicians.

Characterizing Malpractice Cases Involving Emergency Department Advanced Practice Providers, Physicians in Training, and Attending Physicians.

To evaluate available characteristics and financial costs of malpractice cases among Advanced Practice Providers (Nurse Practitioners and Physician Assistants), trainees (medical students, residents, fellows) and attending physicians. A retrospective analysis of claims occurring in the emergency department from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2019 contained in the Candello database. Cases were classified according to the provider type(s) involved: Nurse Practitioner (NP), Physician Assistant (PA), trainee, or cases which did not identify an extender as being substantially involved in the adverse event that resulted in the case ("no extender"). There were 5,854 cases identified with a total gross indemnity paid of $1,007,879,346. Of these cases, 193 (3.3%) involved an NP, 513 (8.8%) involved a PA, 535 (9.1%) involved a trainee, and 4,568 (78.0%) were no extender. Cases where a trainee was involved account for the highest average gross indemnity paid whereas no extender cases are the lowest. NP and PA cases differed by contributing factors compared to no extender cases: Clinical Judgment (NP 89.1% vs no extender 76.8%, p<0.0001; PA 84.6% vs no extender, p < .0001), Documentation (NP 23.3% vs no extender 17.8%, p=0.0489; PA 25.9% vs no extender, p<0.0001) and Supervision (NP 22.3% vs no extender 1.8%, p<0.0001; PA 25.7% vs no extender p < 0.0001). Cases involving NPs and PAs had a lower percentage of high severity cases such as loss of limb or death (NP 45.6% vs no extender 50.2%, p=0.0004; PA 48.3% vs no extender, p < 0.0001). Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) and trainees comprise approximately 21% of malpractice cases and 33% of total gross indemnity paid in this large national emergency department dataset. Understanding differences in characteristics of malpractice claims that occur in emergency care settings can be used to help to mitigate provider risk.

Malpractice Trends Involving Active Surveillance Across Cancers.

To characterize malpractice trends related to active surveillance (AS) as a treatment strategy across cancers. Active surveillance is increasingly considered a viable management strategy for low-risk cancers. Since a subset of AS cases will progress, metastasize, or exhibit cancer-related mortality, a significant barrier to implementation is the perceived risk of litigation from missing the window for cure. Data on malpractice trends across cancers are lacking. Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis Advance databases were searched from 1990 to 2022 for malpractice cases involving active surveillance in conjunction with thyroid cancer, prostate cancer, kidney cancer, breast cancer, or lymphoma. Queries included unpublished cases, trial orders, jury verdicts, and administrative decisions. Data were compiled on legal allegations, procedures performed, and verdicts or settlements rendered. Five prostate cancer cases were identified that pertained to active surveillance. Two cases involved alleged deliberate indifference from AS as a management strategy but were ruled as following the appropriate standard of care. In contrast, 3 cases involved alleged physician negligence for not explicitly recommending AS as a treatment option after complications from surgery occurred. All cases showed documented informed consent for AS, leading to defense verdicts in favor of the physicians. No cases of AS-related malpractice were identified for other cancer types. To date, no evidence of successful malpractice litigation for active surveillance in cancer has been identified. Given the legal precedent detailed in the identified cases and increasing support across national guidelines, active surveillance represents a sound management option in appropriate low-risk cancers, with no increased risk of medicolegal exposure.