Defendant Specialty 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.

332 Descriptive Analysis of State and Federal Malpractice Litigation in the United States Related to Neuroendovascular Procedures

INTRODUCTION: Medical malpractice interests the medical community at large. While previous neurosurgical review articles have analyzed malpractice in the context of spinal surgery, few have reviewed malpractice data surrounding neurovascular procedures as a whole. METHODS: In this retrospective review Google Scholar Case Law, Casetext and Westlaw legal databases were searched for verdict and settlement reports pertaining to neurovascular procedures from 1984 to 2023. Data were collected regarding type of procedure, patient age and gender, defendant specialty, outcome, award, and alleged cause of malpractice. Search terms included “arteriovenous malformation,” “brain aneurysm,” “aneurysm coiling,” “subarachnoid hemorrhage,” “large vessel occlusion,” “mechanical thrombectomy,” “cerebral angiography,” “carotid angioplasty and stenting,” and “carotid stenosis.” Initial search produced 212 cases, after which exclusion criteria were applied to eliminate duplicates and cases unrelated to neurovascular surgery/diagnoses or malpractice, yielding 27 cases total. RESULTS: The verdict favored the defendant physician(s) individually or represented by a healthcare entity in 8 of the 27 cases selected for analysis. Of 19 cases with verdicts in favor of the plaintiff, settlement values ranged from $30,000 to $15.65 million. In settlement cases, the most commonly involved procedures included AVM embolization followed by aneurysm coiling. Amongst cases where interventionist was the defendant, the most common specialty was neurointerventional radiology, followed by neurosurgery. Failure to diagnose was the most cited alleged malpractice cause (51.8%) amongst all cases, regardless of verdict. CONCLUSIONS: Neurovascular emergencies are often addressed by a team of medical specialists including endovascular neurosurgeons, interventional neuroradiologists, and interventional neurologists. In this review, malpractice claims related to neurovascular emergencies most likely to result in plaintiff award were related to failure to diagnose, and interventional neuroradiologists appear to be at greater risk for alleged malpractice.

Analysis of reasons for medical malpractice litigation due to anterior cervical discectomy and fusion

BackgroundAnterior cervical discectomy and fusions (ACDF) are among the most common cervical spine operations, with over 137,000 surgeries performed annually. Understanding reasons underlying malpractice pertaining to ACDF may inform physicians of practices to improve delivery of patient care and mitigate malpractice. The aim of our study was to analyze the causes and outcomes for lawsuits pertaining to ACDF. MethodsThe Westlaw Edge and Verdict Search databases were queried for malpractice claims utilizing the keywords “anterior cervical discectomy and fusion” and “ACDF”. Inclusion criteria was based on relevance of case grievance(s) to ACDF. Data collected included date of case hearing, plaintiff demographics, defendant specialty, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, monetary award, and sustained injuries. ResultsFifty cases were included in this study after excluding 1933 cases. Of the 50 cases, 34 (68%) resulted in a defendant outcome, 8 (16%) resulted in a plaintiff outcome, and 8 (16%) resulted in settlement. Plaintiff verdicts resulted in an average monetary payment of $9.70 million, while settlements resulted in an average payment of $2.06 million. Reasons for litigation were divided into 10 categories, most commonly improper postoperative management (20%), hardware failure (18%), intraoperative error (14%), off-label use of implants (14%), and insufficient informed consent (12%). ConclusionsMalpractice claims due to ACDF are associated with higher frequencies of plaintiff verdicts and higher monetary costs compared to other spinal surgery procedures. There does not appear to be supporting evidence that spinal cord neuromonitoring is mandatory for ACDF procedures from a medicolegal standpoint.

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.

An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation Involving Mandibular Fractures

Background: With an increase in medical litigation, fractures of the mandible are not an uncommon source of legal action. The present study sought to conduct a comprehensive analysis of mandibular fracture malpractice cases. Specifically, the aim was to focus on the reasons a suit is brought, the outcomes, and the compensatory damages of litigation. The information is valuable to physicians as it may serve to minimize the risk of malpractice suits. Methods: The Westlaw and Lexis Nexis databases were searched for jury verdicts and settlements related to mandibular fracture malpractice lawsuits. Cases that did not meet the inclusion criteria, duplicate cases, and those for which enough information was not available were excluded. The data included reasons, outcomes, and monetary outcomes of litigations, as well as defendant specialty, location, year, and plaintiff demographics. Results: A total of 55 included cases spanned between 1970 and 2019. Of these, the most common reason a suit was brought included the defendant’s failure to make the diagnosis, which was noted in 27%. In 71% of the cases, the defendant was a surgeon; with 25% of these cases involving a plastic surgeon. Cases were resolved in favor of the defendant 51% of the time. Regarding outcome, 53% had a monetary outcome of $0. Conclusions: Although a slight majority of cases (51%) resulted in an outcome favoring the defendant, significant monetary consequences against the defendant were possible in cases when the plaintiff prevailed. Since failure to diagnose was the most common reason for a plaintiff to pursue litigation, physicians should thoroughly evaluate patients with suspected mandibular fractures to avoid litigation.

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.

Protecting the Airway and the Physician: Lessons from 214 Cases of Endotracheal Intubation Litigation.

Objective Medicolegal examination of an intervention as common as endotracheal intubation may be valuable to physicians in many specialties. Our objectives were to comprehensively detail the factors raised in litigation to better educate physicians on strategies for minimizing liability and augmenting patient safety. Methods Publicly available court records were searched for pertinent litigation. Ultimately, 214 jury verdict and settlement reports were examined for various factors, including outcome, award, geographic location, defendant specialty, setting in which an injury occurred, patient demographics, and other causes of malpractice. Results Ninety-two cases (43.0%) were resolved in the defendant's favor, with the remaining cases resulting in out-of-court settlement or a plaintiff's verdict. Payments from these cases were considerable, averaging $2.5 M. The most frequent physician defendants were anesthesiologists (59.8%) and emergency-physicians (19.2%), although other specialties were well represented. The most common setting of injury was the operating room (45.3%). Common factors included sustaining permanent deficits (89.2%), death (50.5%), and anoxic brain injury (37.4%). Injuries occurring in labor and delivery mostly involved newborns and had among the highest awards. Conclusions Litigation involves injuries sustained in numerous settings. The most common factors present included sustaining permanent deficits, including anoxic brain injury. The presence of this latter injury increased the likelihood of a case being resolved with payment. Finally, deficits in informed consent were noted in numerous cases, stressing the importance of a clear process in which the physician explains specific risks (such as those detailed in this analysis), benefits, and alternatives.

Medical Malpractice in Robotic Surgery: A Westlaw Database Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Malpractice claims involving robot-assisted surgical procedures have increased more than 250% in the past 7 years compared to the 7 years prior. We examined robotic surgery malpractice claims to identify trends in claimed liabilities, describe legal outcomes, and determine strategies to minimize future litigation. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was queried retrospectively for US state and federal trials regarding robot-assisted surgical procedures from 2006 to 2013 and 2014 to 2021. Data abstracted from verdict reports included year, state, court type, defendant specialty, procedure performed, claimed injuries and liabilities, verdict, and damage amount awarded. RESULTS: Sixty-one cases across 25 states were identified, 16 cases between 2006 and 2013, and 45 from 2014 to 2021 (Fig. 1). Among those 45 cases, defendant verdicts predominated (n = 35, 77.8%), with only four plaintiff verdicts (8.9%) and six settlements (13.3%). Overall, 169 liabilities were claimed, most commonly negligent surgery (82.2%), misdiagnosis/failure to diagnose (46.7%), delayed treatment (35.6%), and lack of informed consent (31.1%). Thirteen cases resulted in indemnity payments (mean = $1,251,274), with damages ranging from $10,087 (infection and retained foreign body) to $5,008,922 (patient death). Hysterectomy (n = 19, 42.2%) was the most commonly litigated surgery, followed by prostatectomy (n = 5) and hernia repair (n = 4). The most litigated specialties were obstetrics/gynecology (48.9%), general surgery (28.9%), and urology (15.6%).CONCLUSION: Malpractice litigation in robot-assisted surgery is infrequent. As robotic procedures become more commonplace, surgeons must keep common liabilities in mind, as there are valuable and actionable lessons to be learned from these cases. Malpractice reform, continuing medical education activities, and improved informed consent protocols may help minimize future litigation.

Medical malpractice in robotic surgery: a Westlaw database analysis.

Malpractice claims involving robot-assisted surgical procedures have increased more than 250% in the past 7 years compared to the seven years prior. We examined robotic surgery malpractice claims to identify trends in claimed liabilities, describe legal outcomes, and determine strategies to minimize future litigation. The Westlaw legal database was queried retrospectively for U.S. state and federal trials regarding robot-assisted surgical procedures from 2006 to 2013 and 2014 to 2021. Data abstracted from verdict reports included year, state, court type, defendant specialty, procedure performed, claimed injuries and liabilities, verdict, and damage amount awarded. Sixty-one cases across 25 states were identified, 16 cases between 2006 and 2013, and 45 from 2014 to 2021. Among those 45 cases, defendant verdicts predominated (n = 35, 77.8%), with only four plaintiff verdicts (8.9%) and six settlements (13.3%). Overall, 169 liabilities were claimed, most commonly negligent surgery (82.2%), misdiagnosis/failure to diagnose (46.7%), delayed treatment (35.6%), and lack of informed consent (31.1%). Thirteen cases resulted in indemnity payments (mean = $1,251,274), with damages ranging from $10,087 (infection and retained foreign body) to $5,008,922 (patient death). Hysterectomy (n = 19, 42.2%) was the most commonly litigated surgery, followed by prostatectomy (n = 5) and hernia repair (n = 4). The most litigated specialties were obstetrics/gynecology (48.9%), general surgery (28.9%), and urology (15.6%). Malpractice litigation in robot-assisted surgery is infrequent. As robotic procedures become more commonplace, surgeons must keep common liabilities in mind, as there are valuable and actionable lessons to be learned from these cases. Malpractice reform, continuing medical education activities, and improved informed consent protocols may help minimize future litigation.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11701-022-01417-6.

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.

Litigation Patterns in Oncologic Nephrectomies: A 30-Year Review.

Introduction: The litigious environment encompassing the medical-legal domain is an increasing concern for surgical fields, with urology being no exception. The objective of our study was to systematically review, evaluate, and summarize the factors associated with oncologic nephrectomy litigation to determine possible factors contributing to verdicts or settlements. Materials and Methods: Publicly available verdict reports were retrieved using the Westlaw® legal database (Reuters). Cases were identified using the search term "nephrectomy" with dates ranging from January 1, 1990 to July 1, 2019. Each case was evaluated by two independent reviewers for defendant specialty, alleged breach in treatment, resulting complications, verdict outcomes, and indemnity payment. Complications were determined to be preoperative, perioperative, and postoperative. Data were analyzed using SPSS software to produce the descriptive statistics. Results: After accounting for duplicates and irrelevant cases, a total of 103 cases were analyzed with more than three-fourths being radical nephrectomies (78%). The most common claim was preoperative negligence (48%); however, negligence in perioperative care received the highest average monetary payment of $5,493,151. Forty-one percent of cases were perioperative with the majority being attributed to vascular injury (46%). The type of perioperative negligence claims and its average payment were found to be statistically significant (p = 0.042). Overall, 57% of cases denied the plaintiff's claims, whereas 28% were awarded. Conclusions: Our data show that although the highest number of cases were caused by preoperative negligence, perioperative negligence accounts for the highest settlement awards. This review provides insights into stages of management in the surgical management of renal cell cancer patients that may be subject to litigation.

Characterization of Medical Malpractice Litigation After Rhinoplasty in the United States.

When complications following rhinoplasty occur or when the desired outcome is not achieved, patients may seek litigation on the premise that there was a violation in the standard of care. Knowledge of malpractice claims can inform rhinoplasty surgeons on how to minimize risk of future litigation as well as improve patient satisfaction. The aims of this study were to identify motives for seeking medical malpractice litigation after rhinoplasty, and to examine outcomes of malpractice litigation after rhinoplasty in the United States. The Westlaw legal database was reviewed for all available court decisions related to malpractice after rhinoplasty. Data collected and analyzed included plaintiff gender, location, specialty of defendant(s), plaintiff allegation, and adjudicated case outcomes. Twenty-three cases were identified between 1960 and 2018, located in 12 US states; 70% of the plaintiffs were female. Otolaryngologists were cited in 11 cases, whereas 12 cases involved a plastic surgeon. All cases alleged negligence. Cases involved "technical" errors (69.6%), "unsatisfactory" outcomes (39.1%), inadequate follow-up or aftercare (30.4%), issues with the informed consent process (21.7%), unexpectedly extensive surgery (8.7%), improper medication administration (4.3%), and failure to recognize symptoms (4.3%). Twenty of the 23 adjudicated cases (86.9%) were ruled in favor of the surgeon. The main contributing factor in cases alleging malpractice was poor aesthetic outcome/disfigurement (60.7%). Malpractice litigation after rhinoplasty favored the surgeon in the majority of the adjudicated cases reviewed. The principal reason for litigating was dissatisfaction with aesthetic outcomes. Rhinoplasty surgeons may mitigate possible litigation by developing a positive doctor-patient relationship, clearly understanding the patient's surgical expectations, and obtaining detailed informed consent while maintaining frequent and caring communication with the patient.

Descriptive Analysis of Federal and State Interventional Pain Malpractice Litigation in the United States: A Pilot Investigation

The aim of this study was to examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. To examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. Retrospective review. Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Data collected for each case included year, state, patient age, patient gender, defendant specialty, legal outcome, award amount, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors in plaintiff's decision to file. After elimination of duplicates and applying inclusion/exclusion criteria to our initial search yielding over 1,500 cases, a total of 82 cases were included in this study. A total of 57.3% of cases resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, whereas 41.5% favored the plaintiff. When comparing cases that were performed in the operating room to cases performed outside the operating room, we found the jury verdicts to favor the plaintiff 83.3% of the time for operating room procedures (P = 0.003). In other words, interventional pain practitioners were more likely to be found at fault for complications from procedures performed in the operating room. To eliminate confounders, a logistical regression was performed and confirmed operating room procedures were an independent predictor of a verdict awarded to the plaintiff (P = 0.008). The median amount awarded to the plaintiff for all cases was $333,000, and the single highest award amount was $36,636,288. The median payout for operating room procedures was $450,000 (P = 0.010), which was significantly different from the median payout for nonoperating room procedures. Procedure categorization demonstrated a statistically significant difference in jury verdicts (P = 0.01411) and procedural error was the leading reason for pursuing litigation, followed by lack of informed consent and unnecessary procedure performed. There is more than one database that captures medicolegal claims brought against practitioners. Westlaw, which has been previously utilized by other studies, is only one of them and the extent to which overlap exists in unclear. For each, data input are not necessarily consistent and data capture are not complete. As a result, there could exist a skew toward more severe complications and the details of individual cases likely vary. During data extraction, we found that all details of the procedure were not always included. For example, not all cases specified the type of injectate utilized for epidural injection (i.e., local anesthetic, steroid, mixture, and others) or route of injection (i.e., transforaminal vs. interlaminar). Moreover, as previously mentioned, cases that are settled out of court or finalized prior to trial are not necessarily reported by the Westlaw database, and therefore were not always included in our data search. Overall, interventional pain medicine physicians were favored by jury verdicts for malpractice claims. However, when filtering by procedure or setting, jury verdicts favored the plaintiff in some cases. Interventional pain, medical, malpractice, anesthesiology.

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.

MP02-18 MALPRACTICE TRENDS IN THE SETTING OF PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING

You have accessJournal of UrologyGeneral & Epidemiological Trends & Socioeconomics: Practice Patterns, Quality of Life and Shared Decision Making I (MP02)1 Apr 2020MP02-18 MALPRACTICE TRENDS IN THE SETTING OF PROSTATE CANCER SCREENING Peter Sunaryo*, Gregory Mullen, Christine W Liaw, Eric Bortnick, and Jay Motola Peter Sunaryo*Peter Sunaryo* More articles by this author , Gregory MullenGregory Mullen More articles by this author , Christine W LiawChristine W Liaw More articles by this author , Eric BortnickEric Bortnick More articles by this author , and Jay MotolaJay Motola More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000000816.018AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Medical malpractice (MP) is an important issue in our country. There has been controversy surrounding PSA testing and prostate cancer screening, specifically the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) whose 2012 guidelines advised against PSA testing and were modified in 2018. The purpose of this study is to identify factors leading to litigation and recent trends related to the screening of prostate cancer. METHODS: The Westlaw database was used to search for jury verdicts ranging from January 2000 to December 2018. Each case was examined for year of trial, patient age, specialty of defendant, alleged cause of MP, and the case outcome. RESULTS: Of 129 examined cases, 66% went to trial and of those, 69% were decided for the defendant. The mean settlement was $967,000 (K) while the mean verdict was $2.0 million (M). Primary care physicians (PCP) (73.7%) were the most cited defendants followed by urologists (U) (21.2%). There were no significant differences (NSD) between the mean verdict or settlement amount between U and PCP ($1.1M vs. $2.2 M, p = 0.23; $803K vs. $1.0M, p =0.47). The most common cause was failure to follow up for an elevated PSA (37%), followed by failing to get an initial PSA (31%). Lack of follow up for an elevated PSA led to significantly higher settlements when compared to failing to get an initial PSA, but verdicts were NSD ($1.0 M vs. $240K, p = 0.007; $1.8 M vs. $970K, p = 0.12). There was NSD between the mean amount of MP cases per year before and after the USPSTF recommendations (7.9 vs. 4.3, p = 0.03) as well as the mean settlement and mean plaintiff award ($970k vs. $970k, p =0.99; $2.1 M vs. $2.6 M, p = 0.44 respectively). CONCLUSIONS: PSA testing is commonly cited in MP. There were no significant changes seen in the incidence of MP. This may be due to lag time from the time of filing a MP claim until its resolution. Limitations on testing may have future consequences and need to be monitored. Both PCP and U must continue to educate patients in order to minimize malpractice claims made in this setting. Source of Funding: None © 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 203Issue Supplement 4April 2020Page: e19-e19 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2020 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Peter Sunaryo* More articles by this author Gregory Mullen More articles by this author Christine W Liaw More articles by this author Eric Bortnick More articles by this author Jay Motola More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...

A 20-Year Analysis of Adverse Events and Litigation With Light-Based Skin Resurfacing Procedures

The popularity and availability of facial rejuvenation procedures have increased exponentially during the previous decade. The present study aimed to provide an overview of photorejuvenation and evaluate the complications and litigation related to light-based skin resurfacing procedures. A retrospective study was performed using the US Food and Drug Administration Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience (MAUDE) registry and the Thomson Reuter Westlaw Edge database from May 1, 1999 to May 1, 2019. The MAUDE registry was queried using the manufacturer brands. Adverse events were individually reviewed, and data were gathered regarding the company, complication, body location, and device type. The litigation cases were individually reviewed, and information was gathered on plaintiff gender, defendant specialty, allegation, jury verdict, the appeals verdict, and the award amount, if applicable. A total of 697 adverse events were included in the final sample. The most commonly reported complications were burns (61.1%), followed by scarring (16.2%), hyperpigmentation (7.8%), and hypopigmentation (7.0%). More rare, noncosmetic complications included infection (3.9%) and nerve (1.4%) and ocular (1.3%) damage. The rates of scarring with facial treatments were greater (24.3 vs 10.3%; P<.01) and the rates of burns with ablative lasers were lower (25.9 vs 66.0%; P<.01). With respect to litigation, of the 9 cases identified, all the plaintiffs were women. The most common allegation was procedural negligence (88.8%), followed by cosmetic deformity (77.7%) and the lack of informed consent (55.5%). The jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff in 4 cases (44.4%), and the mean award was $656,000. The most common adverse events were burns, scars, and pigmentation changes. Patient expectations could play a role in the reporting of adverse events. Negligence was the most common basis for litigation, consistent with what has been reported for other procedures. Future studies should evaluate whether increasing exposure to cosmetic phototherapies during residency and fellowship training will reduce future complication rates and alleged malpractice.

Medical Malpractice Claims After Nonsurgical Cosmetic Procedures

BACKGROUND: Nonsurgical procedures account for >40% of the 15 billion dollars spent on cosmetic procedures nationally each year. These procedures are being performed by physicians across a multitude of both surgical and nonsurgical specialties, and by physician extenders. Although nonsurgical procedures are often viewed as a low-risk alternative to cosmetic surgery, they are not without their own complications. Consequently, physicians assume the risk of malpractice litigation when performing or supervising such procedures. There is a paucity of literature regarding malpractice claims associated with nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. The goal of this study is to use multiple national legal databases to characterize such malpractice claims. METHODS: Retrospective analyses of both the Westlaw legal database and VerdictSearch legal database were performed on all legal cases from 1985 to present that resulted in a verdict or settlement related to nonsurgical cosmetic procedures. The 10 most common nonsurgical cosmetic procedures were included in the search query. Malpractice cases were reviewed individually to ensure that they were directly related to nonsurgical cosmetic procedures and then the databases cross-referenced to eliminate any duplicates. The final combined database was then analyzed based on the procedure, primary malpractice claim, defendant qualifications and specialty, the case outcome, and the amount of award in case of plaintiff decision/settlement. RESULTS: A total of 68 individual cases were collected and analyzed. The most common procedure was laser resurfacing (n = 20), followed by chemical peel (n = 17) and laser hair removal (n = 16). Despite being the most and second most common procedures performed over the last 2 decades, botulinum toxin injection and dermal filler injection only accounted for 1 and 8 malpractice claims, respectively. The most common cause for litigation for laser resurfacing (90%), chemical peel (94%), and laser hair removal (94%) was burns/scarring due to alleged inappropriate administration, whereas the most common cause for litigation after dermal filler injection was nodule/cyst formation (50%). Thirty-eight percent of all cases resulted in a decision in favor of the plaintiff (against the physician) and 6% of cases were settled out of court. The remaining resulted in favor of the defending physician. The average award after a decision in favor of the plaintiff was for $440,323.27 ± $419,404.77. The average settlement was for $393,625.00 ± $240,355.77. The majority of providers with identified specialties were board-certified plastic surgeons (n = 20), followed by dermatologists (n = 14) and ophthalmologist/oculoplastic surgeons (n = 6). There was a disproportionate number of general practitioners (internists, family practitioners, and pediatricians) (n = 7) given the small volume of cosmetic procedures they perform relative to other specialties. There was no significant difference between the procedure, the cause for litigation or the defendant specialty, and the outcome of the lawsuit or the final monetary award. CONCLUSIONS: Medical malpractice litigation is a significant cost burden to physicians across all specialties, including those performing nonsurgical cosmetic procedures in the office. Given the rapidly increasing popularity of nonsurgical procedures, it is important that plastic surgeons are aware of the medicolegal landscape to avoid potential malpractice claims associated with such procedures.

Legal Review of Vasectomy Litigation and the Variables Impacting Trial Outcomes

ObjectiveTo demonstrate the substantial litigious risks associated with vasectomy, a common urologic procedure. We examined the risk factors and types of negligence involved in vasectomy cases that go to trial and their associated outcomes. MethodsUsing the Westlaw legal database, we searched all jury verdicts and settlements for the term “vasectomy” from January 1, 1990 to December 31, 2017. Each case was evaluated for defendant specialty, alleged malpractice breach, resulting complications, outcome including verdict and monetary payment, and whether or not a pregnancy was involved. ResultsThe Westlaw database query returned 67 unique cases which were settled (13.3%) or went to trial in court (86.7%). Of these, the majority (64.2%) were decided in favor of the defending physician. The most commonly alleged breach of duty was negligence in postoperative care (38.8%). This was followed by negligent surgical performance (37.3%) and negligence in performing informed consent (29.9%). The cases filed for negligence in postoperative care, surgical performance, and informed consent were all generally decided in favor of the defendant (61.5%, 56%, and 90%, respectively). Of the 57 cases that specified, 82.5% of the physicians listed in the litigation were urologists. The average settlement won by each plaintiff was $401,913, although most cases were settled for the medical and litigation costs themselves. ConclusionMedical malpractice cases related to the perioperative aspects of vasectomy involve many areas of negligence. This data may guide vasectomists in where to focus time and communication to best serve patients and minimize litigation.

Analysis of Factors Associated With Malpractice Litigation in Rhinoplasty

Rhinoplasty, the third most common cosmetic surgical procedure in the United States, represents the second most litigated facial plastic surgery procedure. Previous examinations of litigation specific to rhinoplasty are limited. The objective of this study was to comprehensively evaluate rhinoplasty malpractice litigation over the past 30 years and to investigate the financial burden of medical malpractice litigation associated with rhinoplasty, as well as factors that contribute to litigation and negative defendant outcomes. Jury verdict and payment reports related to rhinoplasty malpractice litigations over the past 30 years (1988-2018) were obtained using the WestlawNext and Nexis Uni subscription-based legal databases. The term “malpractice” was searched in combination with “rhinoplasty” and various names associated with the procedure. Cases included in the analysis were reviewed for outcomes, verdict payments, defendant specialty, and allegations raised in proceedings. Of the 46 cases identified, 12 (26%) were resolved with a plaintiff verdict payment. The median payment awarded was $127 500 (standard deviation, $96 590.63). The surgeon specialties found for 35 cases included otolaryngology (17 [49%]), plastic surgery (13 [37%]), facial plastic surgery (3 [9%]), and oral/maxillofacial surgery (OMFS; 2 [6%]). A greater proportion of cases involving otolaryngologists were resolved with payment compared with cases involving plastic surgeons (4 [24%] vs 1 [8%]), though this difference did not reach statistical significance ( P = .26). The most common allegations raised among the 46 cases were poor cosmesis (20 [43%]), intraoperative negligence (18 [39%]), inadequate informed consent (13 [28%]), and nasal function deficits (13 [28%]). Cases had a higher likelihood of being resolved in payment when allegations of cosmetic deformity (7%, 95% confidence interval [CI], −17.55 to 31.91) and nasal function deficit (17%, 95% CI, −9.29 to 45.32) were present, nevertheless these findings did not reach statistical significance ( P = .60 and P = .24, respectively). Rhinoplasty malpractice litigation resulting in payments can create substantial financial burden for the defendant. Common factors cited by plaintiffs for pursuing rhinoplasty malpractice litigation included cosmetic deformity, intraoperative negligence, lack of informed consent, and nasal function deficit. Cosmetic deformity and nasal function deficit allegations tended to result in negative defendant outcomes, though these findings are inconclusive. Our findings reinforce the importance of physician-patient communication, including conducting a comprehensive informed consent process, to limit or avoid postsurgical allegations.

A tough pill to swallow: Medicolegal liability and dysphagia

Level of evidenceLevel 4 (Case Series). ObjectiveDysphagia is a debilitating condition that is associated with many etiologies. It can have a devastating effect on a patient's quality of life with long-term sequelae that make it a source of medical malpractice litigation. This study analyzed medical malpractice cases involving dysphagia and looked for factors determining legal liability. MethodsThe Westlaw Next legal database (Thomson Reuters, New York, NY) was searched for relevant malpractice cases and assessed for several factors including if the dysphagia was iatrogenic, the amount paid by the defendant, and the medical specialty of the defendants. ResultsA total of 45 cases of dysphagia were included. The majority of these cases were jury verdicts for the defendant (73.3%). Iatrogenic dysphagia was alleged in 55.5% of cases. Settlements and verdicts favoring the plaintiff resulted in awards ranging between $25,000 and $5,003,000 with a mean of $1,014,015. The most frequent physician specialists named were general surgeons (24.1), internists (11.1%), anesthesiologists (9.3%), gastroenterologists (7.4%), and otolaryngologists (5.6%). Iatrogenic dysphagia (OR 8.89 CI 1.02–77.32), medication-related iatrogenesis (OR 18.86 CI 1.82–195.41), and cases naming multiple specialties as a defendant (OR 5.90, CI 1.07–32.55) were factors associated with a verdict for the plaintiff or a settlement. ConclusionDysphagia is a condition with medicolegal consequences for many specialties. While the majority of these cases are decided in favor of the defendant the cost of a negative outcome is considerable. Iatrogenic dysphagia and naming more than one defendant specialty were associated with increased odds of a plaintiff verdict or settlement.