Malpractice Law Research Articles

Overview of the spine medicolegal environment in the United States

Spine surgeons face significant medicolegal risks over the course of their careers. Malpractice law is fragmented with an extensive variety of regulations depending on the individual state. The political environment in the United States is unlikely to address tort reform in the foreseeable future. Therefore, it is incumbent on spine surgeons to be familiar with the medicolegal framework and the strategies to mitigate risk. Additionally, with the growing use of enabling technology including navigation, robotics, and artificial intelligence, many questions remain about the impact of these systems on patient care and the responsible parties when the machines become more autonomous.

Education for Medical Personnel Malpractice: A Literature Review

Doctors who adhere to professional standards, service standards, and standard operating procedures can generally expect legal protection in their medical practice. Following established protocols and guidelines helps ensure that doctors provide care within accepted norms, reducing the likelihood of malpractice allegations. This is a literature review study that analyzed the literature related to the malpractice law. The initial involved searching various databases, including MEDLINE via PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science from April to May,2023. This search was performed using specific terms, namely doctor, dentist, malpractice, and Indonesian laws. The literature search yielded a total 153 citation (Fig. 1). Upon completion of title and abstract screening, 75 full-texts were deemed potentially relevant and reviewed. Subsequently, 21 documents fulfilled our eligibility criteria and were included. The Medical Council of Indonesia (MKDKI) has the authority to examine complaints related to the discipline of doctors and dentists and determine whether any mistakes were made in the application of medical and dental disciplines. The decisions made by MKDKI can have implications for the professional standing and disciplinary actions against doctors.

The Intersection of Law and Health: Safeguarding Public Welfare

The intersection of law and health is a critical aspect of safeguarding public welfare. This article explores the multifaceted relationship between law and health, emphasizing the key areas where legal principles and regulations contribute to protecting the well-being of individuals and communities. Effective health legislation and regulatory frameworks establish guidelines and standards for healthcare services, ensuring their safety, equity, and quality. Public health laws enable disease control measures, vaccination programs, and health promotion initiatives, reducing preventable illnesses and improving public health outcomes. Medical ethics and legal considerations guide healthcare professionals in upholding principles such as informed consent, patient confidentiality, and end-of-life decisions, safeguarding patient rights and trust. Law also plays a significant role in promoting healthcare access, equity, and human rights. Medical malpractice laws are also discussed in this paper which establish standards of care, deter negligence, and provide compensation for patients harmed by medical errors, promoting accountability and patient safety.

Knowledge, training and experience of advocates (lawyers) regarding medical malpractice laws in Pakistan

Knowledge, training and experience of advocates (lawyers) regarding medical malpractice laws in Pakistan

Understanding Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

Understanding Medical Malpractice Lawsuits.

Defensive versus evidence-based medical technology: Liability risk and electronic fetal monitoring in low-risk births

Technology-intensive birth practices are a hallmark of the overmedicalization of birth. For example, obstetricians routinely use continuous electronic fetal monitoring (EFM), even though this technology is not evidence-based, has a high rate of false positives, and does not improve outcomes in low-risk deliveries. Providers often argue that they must use EFM to protect themselves from malpractice liability, making it a form of defensive medicine. But does variation in actual liability risk contribute significantly to the use of non-evidence-based medical technology like EFM? This study uses multi-level logistic models to examine the effects of malpractice laws and lawsuits on EFM in low-risk births from 1995 to 2003. The models test the hypothesis that state-level variation in liability risk should influence the probability of EFM use. The models reveal that the probability of reporting EFM is higher when states artificially reduce liability risk by capping damage awards, suggesting that objective liability risk does not promote routine EFM and may deter it. In fact, caps on damages limit providers’ legal exposure without doing anything to encourage higher quality care. It is possible that states without tort reforms place greater emphasis on patient rights, safety, and quality of care. On the other hand, by reducing liability risk without encouraging improvements in quality, tort reform laws may inadvertently promote more technology use.

Is the New Medical Malpractice Law Sufficient to Prevent Physicians from Practicing Defensive Medicine in Turkey?

Is the New Medical Malpractice Law Sufficient to Prevent Physicians from Practicing Defensive Medicine in Turkey?

Doctor's Civil Responsibility in Medical Malpractice in Indonesia

In the perspective of civil law, medical malpractice is an unlawful act (onrechtmatige daad) in accordance with the provisions of the Civil Code (Burgerlijk Wetboek). This study aims to analyze the civil liability of a doctor in medical malpractice in Indonesia. This type of research is legalistic, doctrinal or normative. Based on the results of the study, a lawsuit against the law in medical malpractice is regulated in Article 1365 Burgerlijk Wetboek (BW) with elements such as the patient having to suffer losses, mistakes or negligence (other than private persons, hospitals). may also be liable for errors or omissions). negligence of employees), there is a causal relationship between loss and error, the act violates the law. In addition, the form of the doctor's liability in acts against the law of medical malpractice based on Article 1365 BW can be in the form of material and immaterial compensation to patients.

Preventing medical malpractice in mid-20th-century Canada: CMPA and its approach to concerns about varicose vein treatments.

The founding of the Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA) in 1901 was pivotal to Canadian medical malpractice law. At first, the CMPA was a small mutual defence organization that pooled membership fees to cover the costs of physicians facing malpractice litigation. In its early days, the

Analysis of Medical Legal Order as A Basis For Settlement of Medical Malpractice Disputes

This study aims to determine whether the medical legal order can provide a solution for resolving medical disputes carried out by doctors against health service recipients in hospitals. The absence of a malpractice law creates confusion in decision making when doctors become involved in medical disputes. As primary legal material, is has a strong legal basis in making decisions on sanctions that can be imposed on doctors who commit malpractice by violating the professional code of ethics or working not according to standard operating procedures. The methods used are normative legar research methods and library legal research by conducting critical analysis on primary and secondy legal materials. The results of the study have shown that malpractice acts committed by doctors have a clear legal accountability mechanism ,as regulated in Health law number 36 of 2009, law number 29 of 2004 concerning medical practice.Administratively all forms of malpractice committed by docors can be threatened with criminal,civil,administrative sanctions an fines. At a more final level, administrative sanctions from malpractice acts committed by doctors can lead to on revocation of practice license.

The ethics of practicing defensive medicine in Jordan: a diagnostic study

BackgroundDefensive medicine (DM) practice refers to the ordering or prescription of unnecessary treatments or tests while avoiding risky procedures for critically ill patients with the aim to alleviate the physician’s legal responsibility and preserve reputation. Although DM practice is recognized, its dimensions are still uncertain. The subject has been highly investigated in developed countries, but unfortunately, many developing countries are unable to investigate it properly. DM has many serious ramifications, exemplified by the increase in treatment costs for patients and health systems, patients’ exposure to risks, and negative effects on the psychological health of both health providers and recipients. Ultimately, the most serious consequence is the ethical consequences.MethodsThis work is based on a review of the literature related to DM worldwide and a comparison with the available knowledge found in Jordan. It is qualitative with a descriptive nature, aiming to diagnose the current DM practice in Jordan.ResultsThis is the first published article that discusses DM in Jordan by diagnosing its ethical and economic consequences for the health system as well as for patients. Despite the knowledge of the reasons that support its practice, little is being done to solve this issue. The absence of agreeable medical malpractice law, the dearth of unified medical protocols, the overwhelming pressure imposed by patients on medical staff, and the deteriorating patient-physician relationship are some of the causes of DM practice. Surely, the solution to these issues is to focus on fortifying the ethical and humanitarian aspects on the side of both the physician and the patient to ensure positive collaboration. The ethical aim of the physician to treat the patient faithfully and do what is possible to help combined with the appreciation of the physician’s efforts and the choice to not take advantage of the physician through litigation could be the most reasonable solution in the near future.ConclusionJordan is suffering from DM due to the limited financial expenditure on the health sector and the impracticality of medical malpractice law. The authors highlight that the cardinal step in solving this dilemma is restoring the ethical dimension of the patient-physician relationship.

State medical malpractice laws and utilization of surgical treatment for rotator cuff tear and proximal humerus fracture: an observational cohort study

BackgroundHow much does the medical malpractice system affect treatment decisions in orthopaedics? To further this inquiry, we sought to assess whether malpractice liability is associated with differences in surgery rates among elderly orthopaedic patients.MethodsMedicare data were obtained for patients with a rotator cuff tear or proximal humerus fracture in 2011. Multivariate regressions were used to assess whether the probability of surgery is associated with various state-level rules that increase or decrease malpractice liability risks.ResultsStudy results indicate that lower liability is associated with higher surgery rates. States with joint and several liability, caps on punitive damages, and punitive evidence rule had surgery rates that were respectively 5%-, 1%-, and 1%-point higher for rotator cuff tears, and 2%-, 2%- and 1%-point higher for proximal humerus fractures. Conversely, greater liability is associated with lower surgery rates, respectively 6%- and 9%-points lower for rotator cuff patients in states with comparative negligence and pure comparative negligence.ConclusionsMedical malpractice liability is associated with orthopaedic treatment choices. Future research should investigate whether treatment differences result in health outcome changes to assess the costs and benefits of the medical liability system.

Software professionals, malpractice law, and codes of ethics

In pursuit of professional status for computing professionals.

Genomic medicine and the "loss of chance" medical malpractice doctrine.

SummaryAs genomic medicine expands, interest in how medical malpractice law will apply to such questions as whether and when to return new or updated genomic results has grown. Given that access to some genomic results (such as those pertaining to minors or those for which scientific interpretations are unsettled) is delayed for years, the “loss of chance” (LOC) doctrine is of particular potential relevance. Yet it has received relatively little attention among scholars of law and genomics. We performed legal research to determine the status of this malpractice doctrine across the United States and consider its potential applicability to genomic medicine. We further examined known genomic medicine malpractices to assess whether this doctrine had yet been invoked in that context. We identified a trend toward adoption of the LOC doctrine, finding 29 states (58%) have adopted, 15 states (30%) have rejected, and six states (12%) have deferred or not yet addressed the doctrine. Attempts to invoke or apply the doctrine in the known genomic medical malpractice cases were also found. While our findings do not provide cause for substantial concern, the availability of the LOC medical malpractice doctrine is a potentially important factor to consider when making programmatic decisions for genomic medicine. Future research examining whether liability risks posed by this doctrine prompt defensive medicine practices would be useful.

Critical Analysis of Medical Malpractice Laws in Pakistan: An Expedition from Enactment to Opulent Enforcement

Critical Analysis of Medical Malpractice Laws in Pakistan: An Expedition from Enactment to Opulent Enforcement

Sovereign immunity and its implications for neurosurgery

The proportion of neurosurgeons facing a malpractice suit each year is highest among all medical and surgical specialties. It is critical for neurosurgeons to understand local malpractice laws because they vary among states. Sovereign immunity, as described in the 11th constitutional amendment, provides absolute immunity to states from being sued by their residents and by other states. A state may waive its sovereign immunity, however, and substitute itself as the defendant in place of a state-employed physician in the court of law. This means that a physician working for a state-funded hospital may not be liable to a malpractice suit. Further provisions of the law allow the state not to pay indemnity beyond a certain limit, which discourages plaintiff attorneys from pursuing indemnity charges against physicians working for state-funded institutions. In this review, the authors describe the concept of sovereign immunity and its implications for the practice of neurosurgery.

Liability of Health Care Professionals and Institutions During COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy: Symposium Proceedings and Position Statement.

BackgroundOn May 12, 2020, a symposium titled “Liability of healthcare professionals and institutions during COVID-19 pandemic” was held in Italy with the participation of national experts in malpractice law, hospital management, legal medicine, and clinical risk management. The symposium’s rationale was the highly likely inflation of criminal and civil proceedings concerning alleged errors committed by health care professionals and decision makers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Its aim was to identify and discuss the main issues of legal and medicolegal interest and thus to find solid solutions in the spirit of preparedness planning.MethodsThere were 5 main points of discussion: (A) how to judge errors committed during the pandemic because of the application of protocols and therapies based on no or weak evidence of efficacy, (B) whether hospital managers can be considered liable for infected health care professionals who were not given adequate personal protective equipment, (C) whether health care professionals and institutions can be considered liable for cases of infected inpatients who claim that the infection was transmitted in a hospital setting, (D) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the hotspots in long-term care facilities/care homes, and (E) whether health care institutions and hospital managers can be considered liable for the worsening of chronic diseases.Results and ConclusionLimitation of the liability to the cases of gross negligence (with an explicit definition of this term), a no-fault system with statal indemnities for infected cases, and a rigorous methodology for the expert witnesses were proposed as key interventions for successfully facing future proceedings.

Non-Invasive Prenatal Screening: Navigating the Relevant Legal Norms.

The implementation of non-invasive prenatalscreening (NIPS) in Canada will be affected by legal norms. The law can shapephysician behaviour, helpto crystallize standards of care, influence utilizationpatterns, and reflect and reinforce patient expectations. In Canada, failure to inform a patient about NIPS,or misinterpretation of NIPS results, could result in a successful "wrongful birth" claim if the patientsubsequently gives birth to a child with a condition that had been detectable. Given that research shows that physicians'decisions are influenced by concerns aboutliability, malpractice law seems likely to encourage increased recommendation and use ofNIPS. Physicians' fiduciaryand negligence-based disclosure standards require they consider both objectivefactors as well as a specific patient's subjectiveand reasonable beliefs,fears, desires, and expectations. Thus, physicians likely must address dominant publicdiscourses and controversies relevant toNIPS. Given the existence of spin, hype, and misinformation about NIPS, there is an increasing need for a robust consent process and, when appropriate, geneticcounselling. In sum, the law will defineand bound the acceptable behaviour of physicians recommending or administeringNIPS, and nudge the technology'simplementation forward. Physicians and policymakers should beaware of the potential impact of these legal norms on both utilization and public expectations.

Miss Diagnosis: Gendered Injustice in Medical Malpractice Law

Miss Diagnosis: Gendered Injustice in Medical Malpractice Law

The effect of malpractice law on physician supply: Evidence from negligence-standard reforms

We explore whether the composition of the physician workforce is impacted by the clinical standards imposed on physicians under medical liability rules. Specifically, we explore whether the proportion of non-surgeons practicing in a region decreases—and thus whether the proportion of surgeons increases—when liability standards are modified so as to expect that physicians practice more intensively. For these purposes, we draw on a quasi-experiment made possible by states shifting from local to national customs as the basis for setting liability standards. Using data from the Area Health Resource File from 1977 to 2005, we find that the rate of non-surgeons among practicing physicians decreases by 2–2.4 log points (or by 1.4–1.7 percentage points) following the adoption of national-standard laws in initially low surgery-rate regions—i.e., following a change in the law that effectively expects physicians to increase their use of surgical approaches.