Malpractice Litigation Research Articles

Evaluation of malpractice litigation in thyroid disease in the National Health Service

ABSTRACTObjectives: Thyroid disease is managed by primary and a range of secondary care specialties. Interventions for common thyroid conditions are effective, but delays in diagnosis, ineffective or inappropriate treatment may affect outcomes and be subject to litigation. This study aimed to analyze trends in thyroid malpractice litigation in the UK over a 14-year period.Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed negligence claims recorded by the NHS Litigation Authority from 2002 to 2016. Data on incident details, outcomes, time to settlement, costs, and specialties involved were collected and analyzed.Results: Out of 189 cases reviewed, an outcome was decided in 134 cases; of which, 67.9% were successful for the claimant, resulting in compensation being paid. The most common reasons for successful claims were treatment complications (47 cases) and delay or failure of diagnosis (22 cases). Nerve and/or vocal cord damage and hypoparathyroidism were cited in 12 and 3 cases, respectively. Common specialties involved in successful claims were general surgery, ENT and endocrinology. The median (range) costs paid for compensation were £50,701.35 (£189.00 to £4.5 million). The median (interquartile range) time from incident to settlement was 1254 (992–1756) days. The number of claims (overall and successful) has reduced over the 14-year period, but there has been no change in the total cost per successful claim from 2002 to 2014 (p = 0.151).Conclusion: This overview demonstrates common causes and identifies trends in thyroid malpractice litigation in the UK, highlighting the significant costs incurred. The outcomes of the study will provide a basis to enable clinicians to avoid potential pitfalls and formulate guidelines to minimize risk.

Complications and Litigation Associated with Injectable Facial Fillers: A Cross-sectional Study

Soft-tissue injectable fillers are a popular treatment option for patients seeking minimally invasive facial rejuvenation. The use of soft-tissue fillers has increased significantly in the past 10 years; in 2017 alone, clinicians administered nearly 2.7 million soft tissue fillers, up from 1.3 million in 2007 (1,2). Although injectable fillers have a relatively high safety profile when compared to more invasive rejuvenation procedures, serious adverse events including intra-arterial injections, necrosis, and visual symptoms including blindness have been documented (3). Complications from injectable fillers are also a source of litigation, which has been shown to be associated with a perceived lack of informed consent (4). The aims of this paper are to document the reported complication rates associated with injectable facial fillers from a national database and to report on the available cases of malpractice litigation.

Medical Records Quality as Prevention Tool for Healthcare-Associated Infections (HAIs) Related Litigation: a Case Series.

Healthcare-associated infections are one of the most serious Public Health concern, as they prolong the length of hospitalization, reduce the quality of life, and increase morbidity and mortality. Despite they are not completely avoidable, the number of healthcare-associated infections related to negligence claims has risen over the last years, contributing to remarkable economic and reputation losses of Healthcare System. In this regard, several studies suggested a key role of medical records quality in determining medical care process, risk management and preventing liability. Clinical documentation should be able to demonstrate that clinicians met their duty of care and did not compromise patient's safety. Therefore, it has a key role in assessing healthcare workers' liability in malpractice litigation. Our risk management experience has confirmed the role of medical records accuracy in preventing hospital liability and improving the quality of medical care. In the presented healthcare-associated infections cases, evidence-based and guidelinesbased practice, as well as a complete/incomplete medical record, have shown to significantly affect the verdict of the judicial court and inclusion/exclusion of hospital liability in healthcare-associated infections related claims.

Prison malpractice litigation involving dermatologists: A retrospective analysis of dermatologic medical malpractice cases involving incarcerated patients from 1970-2018

Prison malpractice litigation involving dermatologists: A retrospective analysis of dermatologic medical malpractice cases involving incarcerated patients from 1970-2018

Systematic Review of Malpractice Litigation in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Acute Stroke

Background and Purpose- The emergency management of stroke is complex and highly time-sensitive. Recent landmark trials demonstrating the strong benefit of thrombectomy have led to rapid change in stroke management. This article reviews a large number of medical malpractice lawsuits related to the emergency management of stroke to characterize factors involved in these lawsuits. Methods- Three large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to the acute care of stroke patients in the United States. Search terms included "stroke" and "medical malpractice." Cases were screened to include only cases in which the allegation involved negligence in the acute care of a patient suffering a stroke. Results- We found 246 medical malpractice cases related to the acute management of ischemic stroke and 26 related to intracranial hemorrhage. Seventy-one cases specifically alleged a failure to treat with tPA (tissue-type plasminogen activator) and 7 cases alleged a failure to treat, or to timely treat, with thrombectomy. Overall there were 151 cases (56%) which ended with no payout, 74 cases (27%) were settled out of court, and 47 cases (17%) went to court and resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff. The average payout in settlements was $1 802 693, and the average payout in plaintiff verdicts was $9 705 099. Conclusions- Malpractice litigation is a risk in acute stroke care and can lead to significant financial consequences. The majority of malpractice lawsuits related to the emergency management of stroke allege a failure to diagnose and failure to treat. Allegations of a failure to treat acute ischemic stroke with tPA were frequently found and are common in lawsuits. Allegations of a failure to treat a large vessel occlusion with thrombectomy were less frequently found. Given recent changes in practice guidelines and the demonstrated strong treatment effect of thrombectomy, it is likely that such litigation will increase in the coming years.

Clinical Practice Guidelines: An Opinion of the Legal Implication to Veterinary Medicine.

Simple SummaryWith the changing nature of the bond between humans and animals over the past decades, society has higher expectations for veterinary profession services and considers damages in veterinary malpractice and liability cases more carefully. In veterinary malpractice litigation, standards of care expressed in guideline statements could influence the civil and penal courts in the decision-making process. Based on these considerations, the authors examine the importance of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in veterinary malpractice litigation involving quality of care and explore how the law may treat CPGs in the future.The strengthening of the bond between humans and animals has changed the landscape of the veterinary profession. This has, in turn, led the legal system to assess damages in veterinary malpractice and liability cases more carefully, paying attention to the possibility of using clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to prove whether the defendant veterinarian contravened or not the standard of care. In this era of evidence-based veterinary medicine, CPGs are becoming an integral part of many aspects of veterinary practice, even if CPGs do not have the force of law and are situated halfway between ethical rules and legal requirements. Although guidelines have been used for several years, there seems to be a general lack of recognition of the medical and legal ramifications of CPGs for veterinarians. This creates ambiguity and inconsistency in the care that veterinary practitioners provide, compromises the care animals receive, and prevents the courts from assessing veterinarian competence in a systematic and rational way. On the basis of these considerations, this article discusses the legal implications of CPGs in veterinary medicine for dogs and cats and explores how the law may treat CPGs in the future. Redefining the CPGs should be a priority for veterinary profession. NOTE: The authors chose to use the terms “companion animal,” “pet,” and “small animal” interchangeably throughout this article, as all three are commonly in use and refer to the same animals (dogs and cats).

Common Reasons for Malpractice Lawsuits Involving Pulmonary Embolism and Deep Vein Thrombosis

BackgroundPulmonary embolism and deep vein thrombosis are common clinical entities, and the related malpractice suits affect all medical subspecialties. Claims from malpractice litigation were analyzed to understand the demographics of these lawsuits and the common reasons for pursuing litigation. MethodsCases entered into the Westlaw database from March 5, 1987, to May 31, 2018, were reviewed. Search terms included “pulmonary embolism” and “deep vein thrombosis.” ResultsA total of 277 cases were identified. The most frequently identified defendant was an internist (including family practitioner; 33%), followed by an emergency physician (18%), an orthopedic surgeon (16%), and an obstetrician/gynecologist (9%). The most common etiology for pulmonary embolism was prior surgery (41%). The most common allegation was “failure to diagnose and treat” in 62%. Other negligence included the failure to administer prophylactic anticoagulation while in the hospital (18%), failure to prescribe anticoagulation on discharge (8%), failure to administer anticoagulation after diagnosis (8%), and premature discontinuation of anticoagulation (2%). The most frequently claimed injury was death in 222 cases (80%). Verdicts were found for the defendant in 57% of cases and for the plaintiff in 27% and settled in 16%. ConclusionsThe most frequently cited negligent act was the failure to give prophylactic anticoagulation, even after discharge. The trends noted in this study may potentially be addressed and therefore prevented by systems-based practice changes. The most common allegation, “failure to diagnose and treat,” suggests that first-contact doctors such as emergency physicians and primary care practitioners must maintain a high index of suspicion for deep vein thrombosis/pulmonary embolism.

Complications and Litigation Associated With Injectable Facial Fillers: A Cross-Sectional Study

Soft-tissue injectable fillers are a popular treatment option for patients seeking minimally invasive facial rejuvenation. The use of soft-tissue fillers has increased significantly in the past 10years. In 2017 alone, clinicians administered nearly 2.7 million soft-tissue fillers, up from 1.3 million in 2007. Although injectable fillers have a relatively high safety profile compared with more invasive rejuvenation procedures, serious adverse events, including intra-arterial injections, necrosis, and visual symptoms such as blindness, have been documented. Complications from injectable fillers have also been a source of litigation, which has been shown to be associated with a perceived lack of informed consent. We sought to document the reported complication rates associated with injectable facial fillers from a national database and to report on the available cases of malpractice litigation. The US Food and Drug Administration's Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database was used to collect the reported complications from 2013 to 2017 for the following injectable fillers: Artefill, Bellafill, Belotero, Juvederm, Radiesse, Restylane, Sculptra, and Kybella. Complications were organized by filler type, injection location, and complication type. The Thomson Reuters Westlaw Edge database was used to collect the reported jury verdicts and settlements from 2008 to 2017 for injectable facial fillers. A total of 2813 adverse events were analyzed. The most common locations for complications were the cheek (915 [32.5%]), lips (503 [17.9%]), and nasolabial fold (412 [14.6%]). The commonly reported adverse events were swelling (1,691 [60.1%]), nodule (948 [33.7%]), and pain (636 [22.6%]). Severe complications included intra-arterial injections resulting in necrosis and visual symptoms (eg, blurred vision and blindness). Forehead and dorsal nasal injections were significantly associated with intra-arterial complications resulting in necrosis and visual symptoms (P<.01). Injections with Radiesse were significantly associated with intra-arterial injections resulting in necrosis and visual symptoms (P<.01). A total of 11 malpractice cases were analyzed. The median award in the cases resolved by a verdict in favor of the plaintiff or settlement was $600,000. In 10 of the 11 cases, a lack of informed consent had been alleged. The complications associated with injectable facial fillers varied greatly, depending on factors involved with their application. The most common adverse effects were swelling, nodule formation, and pain. Serious complications stemming from intra-arterial injections included necrosis and visual disturbances, including blindness. These complications have been raised in legal cases, in which the lack of informed consent was frequently alleged. The present analysis has documented some of the potential risks involved with injectable facial fillers and demonstrated the need for a thorough informed consent process before their administration.

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.

An analysis of state and federal psoriasis malpractice litigation in the United States from 1954 to 2018.

An analysis of state and federal psoriasis malpractice litigation in the United States from 1954 to 2018.

Otorhinolaryngology litigations in Japan.

The purposeof this study was to examine the malpractice litigations pertaining to otorhinolaryngology in Japan. A retrospective review was undertaken of cases tried in the Japanese civil court system during the 26-year period from 1990 to 2015 as identified in a computerized legal database. Data including patient demographics, disease, chief allegations, court's decisions, and the year decision was made were collected and analyzed. Patients' chief allegations were assigned to one of the five categories: delayed diagnosis, complication during diagnostic procedure, inappropriate treatment, complication during treatment procedure, or lack of informed consent. Thirty-one malpractice litigations were identified. Eight (26%) malpractice litigations pertained to tumors, 1 (3%) to a tumor-like lesion, 14 (45%) to inflammation, and 8 (26%) to others. Among the patients' chief allegations, inappropriate treatment and complication during treatment procedure were the most frequent [11 (36%) for each], followed by delayed diagnosis [6 (19%)], complication during diagnostic procedure [2 (6%)], and lack of informed consent [1 (3%)]. These data may aid in the design of risk-prevention strategies to be used by otorhinolaryngologists.

How Often Do Oral Maxillofacial Surgeons Lose Malpractice Cases and Why?

Although oral maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) carry high legal risk in malpractice lawsuits, data elucidating the reason behind those claims and their outcomes are scarce. The purpose of the present study was to characterize the trends, analyze the payouts, and determine the etiology of malpractice cases against OMSs. A retrospective case series study was performed using the Westlaw database to access medical malpractice cases filed against OMSs from 1980 to 2017. The inclusion criterion was that the defendants had included an OMS. Two of us independently collected the demographic data, verdicts, payouts, and etiology of the litigation. The study sample included 183 cases adjudicated from 1980 to 2017. The results highlighted the temporal and geographic trends, payout information, and etiology of the cases. The total number of malpractice cases had decreased by 60% from 2011 to 2015 compared with the previous 5years. The greatest incidence of malpractice cases filed per 100 practicing OMSs was in New York, followed by California and Massachusetts. Ruling in favor of the defendant OMS was noted in 55% of the cases, of the plaintiffs in 40% of the cases, and had reached a settlement before trial in 3% of the cases. In the cases in which the ruling had favored the plaintiff, the average payment was $812,449.08, with a median payment of $250,000.00 (range, $13,750.00 to $14,887,525.95). Extraction cases represented 53% of all malpractice litigations. Of these, 65% had been third molar extractions that had resulted in lingual nerve injury (26%), postoperative infection (17%), wrong site extractions (15%), and death or brain damage (10%), among other injuries. Approximately one half of the malpractice cases favored the defendant OMS. Most cases were third molar extractions resulting in injuries ranging from lingual nerve injury to death. Complementary data from insurance companies would be helpful to provide more specific analysis of the etiology and trends of the malpractice cases.

Forensic medical examination in cases of medical malpractice: problematic issues of its performance

Objective. The study aims to identify the main issues that arise during the organization and conducting forensic medical examinations in cases of medical malpractice.Material and methods. A retrospective review of available alleged medical malpractice cases (350 in total) happened between 2007 and 2016 and handled at Ternopil, Zhytomyr and Chernivtsi Regional Bureaus of Forensic Medical Examination was performed.Results. The main problem of the organization of forensic medical examinations in cases of medical malpractice is the obsolete regulatory laws and their non-compliance with the requirements of the present. It is strongly needed to recognize a special status of forensic examinations in cases of alleged medical malpractice cases from the point of the current legislation. The most important problems of forensic medical examinations in cases of adverse events in medical care are their inadequate regulation, the lack of an officially recognized detailed methodology for conducting such examinations, the uncertainty of terms and concepts used in expert and legal practice, when the circumstances of the medical incident should be determined. Experts’ conclusions in cases of medical malpractice litigation do not always correspond to the required objectivity, evidence-based medicine, and scientific validity.Conclusions. There are some failures of management during fulfillment of forensic medical commission examination related to alleged medical malpractice cases. These systemic problems need to be solved at the national level by correct actions and decision-making.

Survey of medical malpractice cases and settlements with pathology or laboratory standard of care issues.

Medicolegal liability is an issue of concern for all physicians, including pathologists. Identification of the key clinical issues that tend to lead to medical malpractice litigation, as well as the settlement values for such claims, can be useful for prospective risk management. This review analyzes medical malpractice claims filed in state and federal courts as published in legal databases. Additionally, this review also analyzes the reported settlement values for such claims.

Who Supports Professional Certification? Insights from Employment Arbitration

AbstractProfessional certification programmes became commonplace across the occupational structure in recent years, with many emerging and established professions opting to create their own certification programmes for reasons ranging from collective marketing to reducing malpractice litigation risk. Theories of social closure suggest that advantaged and established individual practitioners might want to use certification as a means of distinguishing themselves and enacting barriers to entry, though research on credentials and signalling theory leads to the expectation that certification is most valued by less secure and younger workers seeking to establish themselves in a profession. We use a survey of employment arbitrators as a case study in the dynamics of who supports certification, finding a surprisingly low overall level of support for certification. Arbitrators who are female, racial minorities and those who earn lower hourly rates are most supportive of creating and earning certification, suggesting that the most natural constituency for a new certification programme may be those looking to ‘break in’ to a profession rather than those already well established in their practice.

An analysis of malpractice litigation in the surgical management of carotid artery disease.

Carotid artery disease is a common illness that can pose a significant risk if left untreated. Treatment via carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) can also lead to complications. Given the risk of adverse events related to treating, or failing to treat, carotid artery disease, this is a possible area for litigation. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the medicolegal factors involved in treating patients suffering carotid artery disease and to compare litigation related to CEA and CAS. Three large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to untreated carotid artery disease, CEA, and CAS. Search terms included "endarterectomy," "medical malpractice," "carotid," "stenosis," "stenting," "stent," and combinations of those words. Three types of cases were considered relevant: 1) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CEA or perioperative care (CEA-related cases); 2) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CAS or perioperative care (CAS-related cases); and 3) cases in which the plaintiff alleged that a CEA or CAS should have been performed (failure-to-treat [FTT] cases). One hundred fifty-four CEA-related cases, 3 CAS-related cases, and 67 FTT cases were identified. Cases resulted in 133 verdicts for the defense (59%), 64 settlements (29%), and 27 plaintiff verdicts (12%). The average payout in cases that were settled outside of court was $1,097,430 and the average payout in cases that went to trial and resulted in a plaintiff verdict was $2,438,253. Common allegations included a failure to diagnose and treat carotid artery disease in a timely manner, treating with inappropriate indications, procedural error, negligent postprocedural management, and lack of informed consent. Allegations of a failure to timely treat known carotid artery disease were likely to lead to a payout (60% of cases involved a payout). Allegations of procedural error, specifically where the resultant injury was nerve injury, were relatively less likely to lead to a payout (28% of cases involved a payout). Both diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease has serious medicolegal implications and risks. In cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict, the payouts were significantly higher than cases resolved outside the courtroom. Knowledge of common allegations in diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease as well as performing CEA and CAS may benefit neurosurgeons. The lack of CAS-related litigation suggests these procedures may entail a lower risk of litigation compared to CEA, even accounting for the difference in the frequency of both procedures.

A Primer to Understanding the Elements of Medical Malpractice.

According to a 2017 survey of 4,000 physicians across 25 different specialties in the United States, 55% of respondents report having been sued at least once, with nearly half of them having been sued multiple times. In addition, procedural specialists are far more likely to be sued. As a procedural-driven specialty, interventional radiology (IR) practitioners are subject to these statistics. While the focus of all IR practices is providing the highest quality care safely and efficiently, medical errors and complications are unavoidable. Understanding the process of medical malpractice litigation is necessary to develop strategies on how best to avoid and mitigate the hardships of the process.

Report of a Collaboration Between a Law School and an Emergency Medicine Residency Program for a Full-scale Medical Malpractice Litigation Simulation.

Medical malpractice litigation is a prevalent challenge for emergency physicians, but there is a dearth of dedicated training in residency programs on this subject. As a result, when emergency physicians become the subject of a medical malpractice action they often find themselves ill-equipped to successfully navigate the process. We sought to create an in-depth medical malpractice simulation encompassing all key aspects of medical practice litigation. We collaborated with a law school for a semester-long simulation of a fabricated medical malpractice case brought against an emergency medicine (EM) resident. In harnessing the legal expertise of law students and faculty we were able to deliver a months-long medical malpractice simulation to our EM residency program. Similarly, in lending the medical expertise of our residents and faculty to the project, the law students were afforded a unique practical experience in learning to litigate medical malpractice. The project resulted in a rich educational experience for both the EM residents and the law students. We present a guide for replication by any residency program in collaboration with a law school.

Characteristics of State and Federal Malpractice Litigation of Medical Liability Claims for Keratinocyte Carcinoma, 1968 to 2018

The prevalence of keratinocyte carcinoma (KC) exceeds that of all other malignant neoplasms combined. Despite the steady rise of payments for medical malpractice liability claims over time, data regarding the characteristics of malpractice litigation for KC are scarce. To identify state and federal appellate medical malpractice liability cases for KC and determine the factors associated with the verdicts. This retrospective review of KC-related malpractice litigation under state or federal jurisdiction reviewed the LexisNexis Academic database of state and federal cases, legal reviews, and case law. All appellate medical malpractice cases at the state and federal levels involving basal cell carcinoma (BCC) or squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) from January 1, 1968, through December 31, 2018, were identified. Demographic characteristics of the cases and plaintiffs, verdict, health care specialty of the defendant, setting of the litigation, rationale for the lawsuit and verdict, factors associated with the case outcome, and monetary payout in cases won by the plaintiff. In total, 83 cases were included in our analysis (34 BCC cases and 49 SCC cases; 47 [57%] male plaintiffs). Sixty-two cases (75%) were decided in favor of the defendant. More KC-related malpractice cases were won by defendants in more recent years than were won by plaintiffs (mean year, 2004 [SD, 11 years] vs 1998 [SD, 14 years]; P = .03). Twenty-five cases (30%) each occurred in the Northeast and the South, and 45 (54%) involved private practices. Most cases involved KCs occurring on the face, head, and/or neck (39 [47%]), the genitalia (22 [27%]), or the extremities (15 [18%]). More than half of defendants were dermatologists (19 [23%]), family medicine physicians (15 [18%]), or oncologists (8 [10%]). Jurisprudence for KC-related malpractice cases most often occurred at the state level (49 [59%]). The most common causes of litigation were failure to diagnose (18 [22%]), misdiagnosis (18 [22%]), and delay in treatment (11 [13%]). More female than male plaintiffs won their malpractice cases (11 of 35 [31%] vs 5 of 43 [12%]; P = .03). More cases involving SCC than BCC led to a decision favoring the plaintiff (13 of 47 [28%] vs 3 of 31 [10%]; P = .05). In cases won by the plaintiff, the median monetary payout was $179 654 and the mean payout was $909 801 (range, $11 537-$5 320 161). This study sheds light on the characteristics and settings of KC malpractice litigation claims, which is vital information for discovering potential areas of quality improvement, patient safety initiatives, and education for patients and health care professionals.

Medical Liability Erased: How the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 Limits Patients’ Access to Proper Care

This paper outlines the severe impact that the Protecting Access to Care Act would have on victims of malpractice who have suffered grave injuries, and also explains how the bill would nearly eliminate patients’ ability to recover damages when doctors or hospitals provide negligent care. Part II of this paper will examine some of the limits that this bill would impose and the impact it would have on injured patients’ ability to recover damages. Part III will describe those entities that are truly driving this bill and what their motives for doing so are. Part IV will clarify some of the misconceptions about tort reform and caps on damages and why the enactment of this bill would ultimately do more harm than good. Finally, Part V will examine the benefits of medical malpractice litigation and why it is imperative to ensure that patients have the ability to find redress in a court of law.