Common Reason For Litigation Research Articles

Medical malpractice and epidural hematomas: a retrospective analysis of 101 cases in the United States.

Neurosurgeons face particularly high rates of litigation compared to physicians in other fields. Malpractice claims are commonly seen after mismanagement of life-threatening medical emergencies, such as epidural haematomas. Due to the lack of legal analysis pertaining to this condition, the aim of this study is to identify risk factors associated with litigation in cases relating to the diagnosis and treatment of epidural haematomas. Westlaw Edge, an online database, was used to analyze malpractice cases related to epidural haematomas between 1986 and 2022. Information regarding plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, trial outcomes, and payouts for verdicts and settlements were recorded. Comparative analysis between cases that returned a jury verdict in favour of the plaintiff versus defendant was completed. A total of 101 cases were included in the analysis. Failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation (n = 64, 63.4%), followed by negligent care resulting in an epidural haematoma (n = 44, 43.6%). Spine surgery (n = 29, 28.7%), trauma (n = 28, 27.7%), and epidural injection/catheter/electrode placement (n = 21, 20.8%) were the primary causes of haematomas. Neurosurgeons (n = 18, 17.8%) and anesthesiologists (n = 17, 16.8%) were the two most common physician specialties cited as defendants. Most cases resulted in a jury verdict in favour of the defense (n = 54, 53.5%). For cases ending in plaintiff verdicts, the average payout was $3621590.45, while the average payment for settlements was $2432272.73. Failure to diagnose epidural haematomas is the most common reason for malpractice litigation, with neurosurgeons and anesthesiologists being the most common physician specialties to be named as defendants. More than half of all cases returned a jury verdict in favour of the defense and, on average, settlements proved to be more cost-effective than plaintiff verdicts.

Retrospective Analysis of US Litigations Involving Dermatologists From 2011 to 2022.

Physician malpractice lawsuits are climbing, and the reasons underlying litigation against dermatologists are unclear. To determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists or dermatology practices. A retrospective analysis of all state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022 was performed after a query using "Dermatology" and "dermatologist" as search terms on 2 national legal data repositories. The authors identified a total of 48 (37 state and 11 federal) lawsuits in which a practicing dermatologist or dermatology group practice was the defendant. The most common reason for litigation was unexpected harm (26 cases, 54.2%), followed by diagnostic error (e.g. incorrect or delayed diagnoses) (16 cases, 33.3%). Six cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as medication side effects or obtaining informed consent. Male dermatologists were sued at a rate 3.1 times higher than female dermatologists. Although lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed diagnoses and ensure critical information is shared with patients to safeguard against easily avoidable litigation.

Medical malpractice and cerebrospinal fluid shunts: An analysis of 36 cases.

Many physicians, particularly neurosurgeons, face malpractice claims during their career. The aim of this paper is to identify which factors increase the risk of litigation and influence legal outcomes relating to cerebrospinal fluid shunt management. Westlaw, an online legal database, was used to identify all medico-legal cases pertaining to cerebrospinal fluid shunts. Information regarding plaintiff demographics, defendant specialties, reasons for litigation, and trial outcomes were analysed. Thirty-six cases met criteria for inclusion. Most cases returned a defence verdict (44.4%), with delayed treatment or failure to appropriately treat patients with shunts the most common reason for litigation (66.7%). The average plaintiff verdict payout was $4,888,136.75 and average settlement $1,362,307.69. Delay or failure to treat resulted in the largest average payouts for plaintiff verdicts and settlements ($5,329,299.14 and $1,531,500.00, respectively).

Medical malpractice and intracranial hemorrhages in the U.S.: An analysis of 121 cases over 35 years

IntroductionThough all physicians are at risk for medical malpractice litigation, those in surgical specialties, particularly neurosurgeons, are at increased risk. Because intracranial hemorrhages are a life-threatening and commonly misdiagnosed condition, the aim of this study is to identify and increase awareness of factors associated with litigation in cases of intracranial hemorrhages. MethodsThe online legal database Westlaw was utilized to query public litigation cases related to the management of intracranial hemorrhages between 1985 and 2020. Various search terms were used to identify cases, and the following variables were extracted: plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, trial year, court type, location, reason for litigation, plaintiff medical complaints, trial outcomes, and payouts for both verdicts and settlements. Comparative analysis was performed between cases decided in favor of the plaintiff and in favor of the defendant. ResultsA total of 121 cases met inclusion criteria. The most common type of hemorrhage was subarachnoid (65.3%), and the most common cause of hemorrhage was cerebral aneurysm/vascular malformation (37.2%). Most cases were brought against a hospital or healthcare system (60.3%), followed by emergency medicine physicians (33.1%), family medicine physicians (10.7%), and neurosurgeons (6.6%). Failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation (84.3%). Cases most frequently resulted in verdicts favoring the defense (48.8%), followed by settlements (35.5%). Plaintiffs were found to be significantly younger in cases ruled in favor of the plaintiff than in cases ruled in favor of the defense (p = 0.014). Cases ruled in favor of the plaintiff were also significantly more likely to involve a neurologist (p = 0.029). ConclusionsMost cases of intracranial hemorrhage resulting in malpractice litigation were classified as subarachnoid hemorrhages and caused by aneurysm/vascular malformation. Most cases were brought against hospital systems, and failure to diagnose was the most common reason for litigation. Cases resulting in verdicts in favor of the plaintiff were significantly more likely to involve younger plaintiffs and neurologists.

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to laminectomy.

The aim of this study was to identify the incidence and characteristics of malpractice lawsuits pertaining to laminectomy performed either as a stand-alone operation or concurrent with another procedure by querying the Westlaw Edge and VerdictSearch databases. Malpractice claims analysis is performed by several medical specialties to provide insight into patient values, methods to improve quality of care, and risk factors for litigation pertaining to specific procedures or treatments. Westlaw and VerdictSearch were queried using the keywords "laminectomy" and "spine." Claims were reviewed, with the inclusion criteria defined as a case filed between 2000 and 2022 that involved the plaintiff's basis of litigation resting on a claim of medical malpractice due to laminectomy. Additional collected data included the case date, verdict ruling, state or federal location of the filed claim, sustained injuries, and payment or settlement amount. After review of 4732 cases, 201 were identified as malpractice claims due to laminectomy. The most common reasons for litigation were delayed or denied treatment (n = 106), procedural errors (n = 38), inadequate management of postlaminectomy syndrome (n = 26), and incorrect procedural selection (n = 14). Regarding the verdict ruling, 47.3% (n = 95) of cases ruled in favor of the defendant, 9.0% (n = 18) resulted in a mixed ruling, 15.9% (n = 32) ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and 9.5% (n = 19) were resolved with an out-of-court settlement. An average payment of $4,530,277 resulted from the cases that ruled in favor of the plaintiff, while out-of-court settlements yielded an average payment of $1,193,146. This study suggests that there are several well-documented risk factors for malpractice claims attributed to laminectomy. The study findings suggest that prompt and accurate diagnosis, coordination of care, timely referral for surgical intervention, and understanding of the indications versus limitations of conservative therapy may help to mitigate the risk of litigation associated with laminectomy.

Analysis of medical malpractice litigation following vertebral augmentation therapy in China from 2008 to 2018.

The first case of vertebral augmentation therapy in mainland China was reported in 2000. Since then, it has been widely used in China as a minimally invasive procedure to treat vertebral compression fractures. However, the characteristics of malpractice litigation involving vertebral augmentation therapy remains unclear. This study aims to analyze the characteristics of medical malpractice litigation involving vertebral augmentation therapy in mainland China for the past 10 years. Two online legal databases were queried for court verdicts involving vertebral augmentation therapy from Jan 2009 to Dec 2018 in mainland China. Each case file was then thoroughly reviewed and data pertaining to defendants, plaintiffs, case outcomes, allegations, and verdicts were abstracted, and descriptive analyses were performed. Level of evidence: LEVEL III. A total of 96 cases were enrolled for final analysis. The number of claims increased by five times during the past 10 years. More than two thirds (67.7%, n = 65) of the cases underwent percutaneous vertebroplasty, and 22.9% (n = 22) underwent percutaneous kyphoplasty, the rest (9.4%, n = 9) remained undefined. Paralysis was alleged in 35.4% of cases (n = 34), followed by significant physical injury (34.4%, n = 33). Cement leakage to spinal canal (44.8%, n = 43) is the most commonly cited reason for litigation, followed by incomplete informed consent (42.7%, n = 41), accidental dural puncture (20.8%, n = 20), unsatisfactory clinical outcome (18.8%, n = 18), and misdiagnosis (12.5%, n = 12). Acute pulmonary cement embolism (4.2%, n = 4), wrong-level vertebrae procedure (3.1%, n = 3) and postoperative infection (2.1%, n = 2) were less common causes for concern. Doctors successfully defended themselves only in 8 (8.3%) cases, which resulted in no indemnity payment. The rest 88 (91.7%) cases were closed with a mean verdict payout of 361,580 Yuan (51,654 US dollars). There is a quickly rising trend in the number of medical malpractice litigation involving vertebral augmentation therapy in China. Identifying the most common reasons for litigation and summarizing their characteristics may help decrease litigation rate and improve the patient experience.

Analysis of Medical Malpractice Outcomes for Sports Orthopedic Procedures.

Orthopedic sports medicine surgeons are especially vulnerable to litigation, largely because of high patient expectations in the setting of complex surgeries. Understanding the factors associated with litigation may reduce physician risk as well as optimize patient satisfaction and outcomes. We used a national medicolegal database to search for medical malpractice verdicts and out-of-court settlements involving common sports injuries and their surgical management between January 1, 2000, and January 1, 2018. Univariate analysis was performed to identify predictors of case outcome and monetary awards. We identified 777 cases, but only 328 met the inclusion criteria. Of the 328 cases included in our study, 231 (70.4%) resulted in a defendant verdict, 75 (22.9%) resulted in a plaintiff verdict, and 22 (6.7%) resulted in a settlement. The most common reason for litigation was intraoperative error (183 cases, 55.8%). No statistically significant difference was found between monetary awards for plaintiff verdicts vs settlements (mean award of $1.29 million and $0.72 million, respectively, P=.07). Cases in which the plaintiff claimed neurovascular injury were significantly more likely to result in a higher monetary award (mean award of $2.37 million, P=.02). Cases involving an incorrect surgical site were significantly less likely to result in a defendant outcome, with 7 of 12 cases (58.3%) leading to a plaintiff outcome (P=.047). With more than two-thirds of cases resulting in a defendant verdict, many suits result in a favorable outcome for practitioners. Intraoperative error is the most common reason for litigation, and neurovascular injury resulted in the highest monetary payouts. Vigilance to avoid these events may improve patient outcomes and decrease liability to practitioners. [Orthopedics. 2022;45(1):e47-e52.].

Predictors of Medical Malpractice Outcomes After Spine Surgery: A Comprehensive Analysis From 2010 to 2019.

Retrospective review of spine surgery malpractice cases. The aim was to compare medical malpractice outcomes among different types of spine surgery and identify predictors of litigation outcomes. Spine surgery is highly litigious in the United States with data suggesting favorable outcomes for defendant surgeons. However, factor specific data and explanations for plaintiff verdicts are lacking. Westlaw legal database was queried for spine surgery malpractice outcomes from 2010 to 2019. Clinical data, reasons for litigation, and legal outcomes were tabulated. Statistical analysis was performed to identify factors associated with litigation outcomes. A total of 257 cases were identified for inclusion. There were 98 noninstrumented and 148 instrumented cases; 110 single-level and 99 multilevel; 83 decompressions, 95 decompression and fusions, and 47 fusion only. In all, 182 (71%) resulted in a defendant verdict, 44 (17%) plaintiff verdict, and 31 (12%) settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in payouts of $2.03 million, while settlements resulted in $1.11 million (P=0.34). Common reasons for litigation were intraoperative error, hardware complication, and improper postoperative management. Cases were more likely to result for the plaintiff if postoperative cauda equina syndrome (55% vs. 26%, P<0.01), a surgical site infection (46% vs. 27%, P=0.03), or other catastrophic injury (40% vs. 26%, P=0.03) occurred. Higher monetary awards were associated with multi versus single-level (median: $2.61 vs. $0.92 million, P=0.01), improper postoperative management cited (median: $2.29 vs. $1.12 million, P=0.04), and permanent neurological deficits ($2.29 vs. $0.78 million, P<0.01). Plaintiff payouts were more likely if defendant specialty was neurosurgery versus orthopedic surgery (33% vs. 18%, P=0.01). Spine surgery is a litigious field with multiple factors associated with outcomes. Efforts to reduce intraoperative errors and complications may improve patient care and decrease the risk of litigation.

What can be learned from litigation in otology? A review of clinical negligence claims in England 2013-2018.

Litigation in the National Health Service continues to rise with a 9.4 per cent increase in clinical negligence claims from the period 2018 and 2019 to the period 2019 and 2020. The cost of these claims now accounts for 1.8 per cent of the National Health Service 2019 to 2020 budget. This study aimed to identify the characteristics of clinical negligence claims in the subspecialty of otology. This study was a retrospective review of all clinical negligence claims in otology in England held by National Health Service Resolution between April 2013 and April 2018. There were 171 claims in otology, 24 per cent of all otolaryngology claims, with a potential cost of £24.5 million. Over half of these were associated with hearing loss. Stapedectomy was the highest mean cost per claim operation at £769 438. The most common reasons for litigation were failure or delay in treatment (23 per cent), failure or delay in diagnosis (20 per cent), intra-operative complications (15 per cent) and inadequate consent (13 per cent). There is a risk of high-cost claims in otology, especially with objective injuries such as hearing loss and facial nerve injury.

Medical Malpractice and Trigeminal Neuralgia: An Analysis of 49 Cases

Our study fills the vacancy of litigation research related to trigeminal neuralgia management, giving health care providers the information needed to understand the potential litigious outcomes that follow treatment methods. We queried the Westlaw database to identify litigation cases related to trigeminal neuralgia management. Key variables extracted included medical complaints, trial outcomes, and demographics. Continuous variables were compared between cases in favor of defendant and cases in favor of plaintiff using t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test. Categorial variables were compared using χ2 or Fisher exact test. About 49 cases met the inclusion criteria-for those cases surgical complications (42.9%) were cited as the most common reasons for malpractice claims. Cranial nerve deficits (34.7%) were the most frequent postoperative complaints. Verdicts ruled in favor of the plaintiff in 26.5% of cases with a mean payout of $1,982,428.46. Dentists were included in the most cases, 63.3%, and the average payout was $415,908, whereas neurosurgeons were involved in 20.4% of cases with an average payout of $618,775. Cases with verdicts in favor of the plaintiff were more likely to be older than cases with verdicts in favor of the defendant (P=.03). Over one-half of cases resulted in verdicts in favor of the defendant with surgical complications cited as the most common reason for litigation. Dentistry was the most common individual clinical specialty for defendants, whereas neurosurgery contributed to the largest average payout based on specialty (for n>1). Cranial nerve deficits were the most common plaintiff postoperative complaints. These analyses may help doctor teams involved in management of trigeminal neuralgia to have a more informed discussion with the patient at every visit so that such litigations may be avoided.

Medical malpractice and meningiomas: an analysis of 47 cases.

Among medical practices, surgical fields, including neurosurgery, are at a high risk for medical malpractice litigation. With meningiomas contributing to 10% of the total neurosurgery litigation cases, the aim of this study was to identify demographic characteristics, reasons for litigation, and surgical complications commonly reported in these cases. This analysis serves to increase neurosurgeons' awareness of factors associated with medical malpractice litigation. The online legal database Westlaw was utilized to query public litigation cases related to the medical management of meningiomas between December 1985 and May 2020. Variables extracted included the following: plaintiff and defendant demographics, litigation category, plaintiff medical complaints, and trial outcomes. The authors compared these characteristics between cases with decisions in favor of the defendant and those with decisions in favor of the plaintiff. A total of 47 cases met the inclusion criteria. Failure to diagnose (68.1%) was the most common type of malpractice claim, and surgical complications (19.1%), motor weakness (33%), and financial loss (33%) were cited as the most common postoperative complaints. Individual specialties that most often required defense due to malpractice claims were radiology (21.7%) and neurosurgery (19.6%). The jury verdict was in favor of the defense in 51.1% of cases and in favor of the plaintiff in 27.7% of cases. A settlement was reached in 19.1% of cases. The mean payout for a verdict in favor of the plaintiff was $3,409,650.22, while the mean payout for settlements was $867,555.56. The greatest average payout for specialties was in neurosurgery at $3,414,400, followed by radiology at $3,192,960. Cases with a verdict in favor of the plaintiff were more likely to involve an internal medicine physician as a defendant (p = 0.007). Over one-half of the cases resulted in a defendant's verdict with failure to diagnose cited as the most common reason for litigation. Radiology and neurosurgery were the most common specialties for legal cases and also had some of the largest average payouts based on specialty. Motor weakness and financial loss were the most common plaintiff postoperative complaints. These findings may inform surgeons on active measures to take, such as increasing focus on diagnostic accuracy and reducing specific postoperative complaints, such as motor weakness, through risk management and prophylactic measures, to reduce unfavorable legal outcomes.

A review of medical malpractice cases in congenital cardiac surgery in the Westlaw database in the United States from 1994 to 2019

Medical malpractice litigations are common for cardiac surgeons, and congenital cardiac surgeons are uniquely held accountable by patients, who are minors, and their families. Therefore, it is imperative for physicians to be cognizant of clinically effective and legally tenable practices. The Westlaw legal research service was utilized to collect medical malpractice litigations from 1994 to 2019 pertaining to congenital cardiac surgery, inclusive, in the United States. Court documents were manually screened, with 177 litigations satisfying criteria for inclusion. Data collection included patient demographics, verdict and litigation characteristics, and clinical data. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the significance of association. Across the 177 litigations, 44% had defendant verdicts, 30% had plaintiff verdicts, and 26% had settlements. The average plaintiff award was $9,363,710, and the average settlement was $4,141,825. Patient mortality occurred in 87 cases (49.2%), and wrongful death claims were argued in 71 cases (40%). The most common reason for litigation were procedural errors (79 cases, 45%). The most frequent clinical event was cardiac arrest (95 cases, 54%). California recorded the most litigations (34 cases, 19.2%). Defendant verdicts were significantly associated with cardiac arrest, procedural errors, and permanent neurological injury (p < .05). Defendant's verdicts were more common in cases with patient mortality, which had lower average plaintiff awards and settlements, since future healthcare expenses are inapplicable to this cohort. Future litigations can be minimized with an emphasis on reducing procedural errors, treating and diagnosing patients timely, and monitoring patients sufficiently.

Delayed Diagnosis Is the Primary Cause of Sarcoma Litigation: Analysis of Malpractice Claims in the United States.

Sarcoma care is highly litigated in medical malpractice claims. Understanding the reasons for litigation and legal outcomes in sarcoma care may help physicians deliver more effective and satisfying care to patients while limiting their legal exposure. However, few studies have described malpractice litigation in sarcoma care. (1) What percentage of sarcoma malpractice cases result in a defendant verdict? (2) What is the median indemnity payment for cases that result in a plaintiff verdict or settlement? (3) What are the most common reasons for litigation, injuries sustained, and medical specialties of the defendant physicians? (4) What are the factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments? The national medicolegal database Westlaw was queried for medical malpractice cases pertaining to sarcomas that reached verdicts or settlements. Cases from 1982 to 2018 in the United States were included in the study to evaluate for trends in sarcoma litigation. Demographic and clinical data, tumor characteristics, reasons for litigation, injuries, and legal outcomes were recorded for each case. A univariate analysis was performed to identify factors associated with plaintiff verdicts or settlements and higher indemnity payments, such as tumor characteristics, defendant's medical or surgical specialty, reason for litigation, and injuries sustained. A total of 92 cases related to sarcomas were included in the study, of which 40 were related to bone sarcomas and 52 were related to soft-tissue sarcomas. Eighty-five percent (78 of 92) of cases involved adult patients (mean age ± SD: 40 ± 15 years) while 15% (14 of 92) of cases involved pediatric patients (mean age ± SD: 12.5 ± 5 years). Thirty-eight percent (35 of 92) of the included cases resulted in a defendant verdict, 30% (28 of 92) resulted in a plaintiff verdict, and 32% (29 of 92) resulted in a settlement. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) indemnity payment for plaintiff verdicts and settlements was USD 1.9 million (USD 0.5 to USD 3.5 million). Median (IQR) indemnity payments were higher for cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict than for cases that resulted in a settlement (USD 3.3 million [1.1 to 5.7 million] versus USD 1.2 million [0.4 to 2.4 million]; difference of medians = USD 2.2 million; p = 0.008). The most common reason for litigation was delayed diagnosis of sarcoma (91%; 84 of 92) while the most common injuries cited were progression to metastatic disease (51%; 47 of 92) and wrongful death (41%; 38 of 92). Malpractice claims were most commonly filed against primary care physicians (26%; 28 of 109 defendants), nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons (23%; 25 of 109), and radiologists (15%; 16 of 109). Cases were more likely to result in a ruling in favor of the plaintiff or settlement if a delay in diagnosis occurred despite suspicious findings on imaging or pathologic findings (80% versus 51%; odds ratio 3.84 [95% CI 1.34 to 11.03]; p = 0.02). There were no differences in indemnity payments with the numbers available in terms of tumor type, tumor location, defendant specialty, reason for litigation, and resulting injuries. Many lawsuits were made against primary care physicians, nononcology-trained orthopaedic surgeons, or radiologists for a delayed diagnosis of sarcoma despite the presence of imaging or histologic findings suspicious for malignancy. Although previous studies of bone and soft-tissue sarcomas have not shown a consistent association between time to diagnosis and decreased survival, our study suggests that physicians are still likely to lose these lawsuits because of the perceived benefits of an early diagnosis. Physicians can mitigate their malpractice risk while reducing delays in diagnosis of sarcomas by carefully reviewing all existing diagnostic studies, establishing closed-loop communication protocols to communicate critical findings from diagnostic studies, and developing policies to facilitate second-opinion consultation, particularly for imaging studies, with an experienced sarcoma specialist. Musculoskeletal oncologists may be able to help further reduce the rates of malpractice litigation in sarcoma care by helping patients understand that delays in diagnosis do not necessarily constitute medical malpractice.

Medical Malpractice Trends in Thyroidectomies among General Surgeons and Otolaryngologists.

ObjectivesThis study aims to examine litigation trends with thyroidectomies in the United States from 1984 to 2018.MethodsWe used the Westlaw legal database to collect data on the defendant, plaintiff, case demographics, alleged reasons for malpractice, additional complications, and case outcomes.ResultsThe most common reason for litigation was vocal cord paralysis (51%, n = 28), with the majority ruling in favor of the defendant (64%, P = .042). Of those, 43% of cases (n = 12) were due to unilateral recurrent laryngeal nerve (RLN) injury, and 39% (n = 11) were due to bilateral RLN injury. Of the claims due to vocal cord paralysis that resulted in indemnity payment (36%), the majority included additional damages, such as lack of informed consent (30%) or subsequent damages from permanent tracheostomy (40%), which is usually a result of bilateral nerve paralysis.ConclusionRLN injury was the most common complication leading to trial, with most cases ruling in favor of the defense. However, most verdicts that favored the plaintiff or those that settled were due to subsequent damages from bilateral nerve paralysis, such as permanent tracheostomy. We encourage surgeons to consider a staged procedure in high-risk cases or cases with signal loss. There needs to be a bigger emphasis on informed consent in the training of surgeons. Surgeons should educate patients at high risk on potential surgical complications that may drastically affect their quality of life.

A Qualitative Analysis of Malpractice Litigation in Cardiology Using Case Summaries Through a National Legal Database Analysis.

IntroductionPhysicians are increasingly practicing defensive medicine as a response to society’s litigious climate. This study sought to characterize cardiology malpractice claims and elucidate the allegations underlying the use of defensive medicine.MethodsThe WestlawNext™ database was queried to obtain state and federal jury verdicts and settlements related to medical malpractice and cardiology that occurred in the United States between 2010 and 2015. Cardiology cases were identified using the search terms “medical malpractice” and “cardiology” and reviewed by two individuals utilizing available case documents. Duplicate and nonpertinent cases were excluded. Binary logistic regression models were created to predict the likelihood of defendant verdict, plaintiff verdict, and settlement based on the various reasons for litigation cited.ResultsInclusion criteria were met in 166 cases. The plaintiffs were predominantly male (94 cases; 56.6%), and the average patient age was 53.3±17.5 years. More than half of the cases involved a cardiologist as a defendant. The most common reasons for litigation were: failure to treat (129; 77.7%), failure to diagnose (115; 69.3%), failure to refer/order diagnostic tests (107; 64.5%), and patient death (118; 71.1%). Among cases tried for failure to diagnose, the most commonly missed diagnosis was myocardial infarction. Cases most commonly resulted in a defendant verdict (94; 56.6%). However, odds of a plaintiff verdict were significantly higher when failure to diagnose was alleged with an odds ratio (OR) of 7.60 (95% confidence interval 1.14 - 50.87, p = 0.0365).ConclusionsFailure to diagnose remains a commonly alleged base for litigation. In conclusion, our analysis suggests increased training for non-cardiologists in the recognition of the acute coronary syndrome and enhanced awareness of inherent biases among all physicians may facilitate reducing missed diagnoses.

Medical Malpractice Litigation Following Primary Total Joint Arthroplasty: A Comprehensive, Nationwide Analysis of the Past Decade

BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to (1) characterize the most common reasons of medical malpractice litigation against adult reconstruction surgeons and (2) report on the outcomes of these lawsuits. MethodsThe Westlaw legal research database was queried for cases between 2008 and 2018 related to total hip and knee arthroplasty (THA and TKA) in the United States. Causes of the lawsuit, patient characteristics, demographics, state/outcome of verdict or settlement, and indemnity payments were noted. ResultsA total of 148 records (81 females [55%], 67 males [45%]; 83 TKAs [56%], 65 THAs [44%]) were included in the final analysis. For all patients, infection was the leading cause for malpractice litigation (22%) followed by nerve injury (20%). For TKA, infection was the most common cause of lawsuit (33%). In THA cases, nerve injury was the most common reason for lawsuit (38%), followed by leg-length discrepancy (26%). Procedural errors were alleged in 72% of cases, while diagnostic and post-surgical errors were cited in 55% and 32% of cases. A defense verdict occurred in 74% of cases, plaintiff verdict in 21%, and parties settled in 5%. ConclusionInfection and nerve injury were the most common reasons for litigation in TKA and THA, respectively. The most likely outcome of these lawsuits was a jury verdict in favor of the surgeon. Regardless, surgeons should be cognizant of the potential for lawsuit due to these complications and should ensure they inform patients of these potential complications of TJA preoperatively.

Legal and ethical implications of voluntary non-therapeutic sterilization as a way of realization of human reproductive rights

This article deals with legal and ethical aspects of sterilization of capable women of reproductive age. The authors point to the ethical and legal contradiction of establishing a high age criterium. Also, the authors consider the most common reasons for litigation during voluntary sterilization.

Assessment of malpractice claims associated with rotator cuff surgery.

Rotator cuff surgery is a commonly performed and may lead to malpractice litigation. Despite this, there is a paucity of data evaluating outcomes of malpractice litigation following rotator cuff surgery.A retrospective investigation of the VerdictSearch legal claims database following rotator cuff surgery was performed. Plaintiff demographics, reason for litigation, and the effect of surgical complications were assessed as were the proportion of plaintiff rulings and size of payments.In total, 40 cases were analyzed. Mean age of plaintiffs was 52±11.2 years; 30 (75%) plaintiffs were male. Twenty-six cases (65% of suits) named pain and weakness as a complication of the procedure. In total, 60% (24) resulted in a defendant ruling, 25% (10) in a plaintiff ruling, and 15% (6) in a settlement. Total liabilities of the 40 cases were $15,365,321 with individual awards ranging from $75,000 to $5,000,000. Mean plaintiff award was $694,032±$586,835 (range: $75,000 to $1,900,000). Mean settlement amount was $1,404,167±$1,816,481 (range: $75,000 to $5,000,000).This study is the first examination of legal claims following rotator cuff surgery. Objective symptoms following surgery, such as decreased range of motion and rotator cuff weakness, as well as subjective complaints of pain and suffering were the most common reason for litigation, and when successful, led to indemnity payments averaging under $1 million each.

Breast Cancer Litigation in the 21st Century.

Approximately 15% of general surgeons practicing in the United States face a medical malpractice lawsuit each year. This study aimed to determine the reasons for litigation for breast cancer care during the past 17years by reviewing a public legal database. The LexisNexis legal database was queried using a comprehensive list of terms related to breast cancer, identifying all cases from 2000 to 2017. Data were abstracted, and descriptive analyses were performed. The study identified 264 cases of litigation pertaining to breast cancer care. Delay in breast cancer diagnosis was the most common reason for litigation (n = 156, 59.1%), followed by improperly performed procedures (n = 26, 9.8%). The medical specialties most frequently named in lawsuits as primary defendants were radiology (n = 76, 28.8%), general surgery (n = 74, 28%), and primary care (n = 52, 19.7%). The verdict favored the defendant in 145 cases (54.9%) and the plantiff in 60 cases (22.7%). In 59 cases (22.3%), a settlement was reached out of court. The median plaintiff verdict payouts ($1,485,000) were greater than the settlement payouts ($862,500) (p = 0.04). Failure to diagnose breast cancer in a timely manner was the most common reason for litigation related to breast cancer care in the United States. General surgery was the second most common specialty named in the malpractice cases studied. Most cases were decided in favor of the defendant, but when the plaintiff received a payout, the amount often was substantial. Identifying the most common reasons for litigation may help decrease this rate and improve the patient experience.

Ureterolysis for Laparoscopic Hysterectomy

To demonstrate techniques of ureterolysis during complex laparoscopic hysterectomy. Technical video demonstrating different approaches to ureterolysis for complex benign pathology during laparoscopic hysterectomy (Canadian Task Force classification III). Benign gynecology department at a university hospital. Performance of ureterolysis during laparoscopic hysterectomy for benign pathology. Ureteric injury has significant morbidity and is the most common reason for litigation following hysterectomy, with an estimated risk of 0.02% to 0.4%. [1,2]. Ureterolysis is infrequently practiced by benign gynecologists; however, it may be necessary during complex surgery. Benign pathology requiring hysterectomy, such as endometriosis, myomas, large uteri, and adnexal masses, are recognized risk factors for ureteric injury [3]. Most injuries occur during division of the uterine artery at the level of the internal cervical os. The average distance between the ureter and cervix is 2 cm, but it is only 0.5 cm in 3.2% of the population with a normal pelvis [4]. Preventive strategies, such as the use of a uterine manipulator, may increase this distance, although it still might not be sufficient to prevent injury in women with normal anatomic variants and complex pathology. Visualizing the ureter at the pelvic brim and side wall without retroperitoneal dissection may be inadequate because the segment of ureter between the intersection of the uterine artery and the bladder is not visible. The ureter can be safely dissected up to 15 cm without compromising its viability. In this educational video, we demonstrate various simple, quick, and reproducible techniques to perform ureterolysis for complex benign pathology. These techniques can be used by both expert and novice surgeons to perform and teach ureterolysis. Our method determines the course of the ureter throughout the pelvis and relation to the uterine artery to reduce intraoperative injury. We have performed more than 350 cases with no injuries.