Medical Malpractice Litigation Research Articles

An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation Involving Orbital Fractures.

Orbital fractures frequently require operative management by a plastic and reconstructive surgeon. Due to the proximity to the globe and complexity of the reconstruction, orbital fractures, and related procedures have the potential to be a source of medical litigation. The aim of the present study was to review orbital fracture malpractice litigation, including case outcomes and compensatory damages. The Westlaw and Lexis Nexis databases were queried for jury verdicts and settlements related to orbital fracture malpractice lawsuits. The Boolean terms included "orbit! /10 fracture," "orbit! & fracture," and "ocular & fracture" for both databases. Cases were included if they were state or federal cases related to both orbital fracture and medical malpractice involving surgical or medical mismanagement or misdiagnosis of orbital fracture. A total of 49 cases from 1994 to 2018 met inclusion criteria between the databases. The most common legal complaint was the defendant's failure to make a diagnosis either by not ordering the proper radiological tests or by not interpreting radiological tests correctly, seen in 35% of cases. In 57% of the cases, the defendant was a surgeon, 46% of which involved a plastic surgeon specifically. Cases were resolved in favor of the defendant 49% of the time. Most cases (57%) resulted in a monetary outcome of $0. However, cases that were decided in favor of the plaintiff had significant compensatory damages with the majority being over $100,000, and 1 case as high as $8 million. Although almost half of the orbital fracture malpractice cases resulted in an outcome favoring the defendant, significant monetary consequences against the defendant were possible in cases when the plaintiff prevailed.

110 Trends and Risk Factors for Medical Malpractice Litigation in Open Cranial Neurosurgery

INTRODUCTION: Neurosurgery is the most litigious specialty amongst all specialties across medicine. Understanding the reasons for malpractice claims can help inform neurosurgeons improve care and mitigate litigation risk. METHODS: The Westlaw Edge and LexisNexis databases were searched for cases involving medical malpractice claims due to cranial surgery between the years 1985-2023. Data collected included case date, verdict ruling, jurisdiction, sustained injuries, and awards or settlement amounts. RESULTS: Of 1546 cases reviewed, 317 were identified as malpractice claims resulting from cranial surgery. The primary causes for litigation were perioperative complications (n=115), delayed or denied treatment (n = 95), insufficient follow-up care (n = 51), inappropriate procedure selection (n = 39), and inadequate informed consent (n = 8). Tumor surgery had the highest number of claims (n = 81), followed by vascular (n = 59), trauma (n = 54), infection (n = 43), functional/epilepsy (n = 28), and other/not defined (n = 56). Regarding verdict ruling, 39.4% (n = 125) ruled in favour of the defendant; 20.5% (n = 65) in favour of the plaintiff; 2.2% of verdicts resulted in mixed ruling (n = 7); in 10.7% (n = 34) of claims were resolved in an out-of-court settlement; and in 27.1% (n = 86) the verdict was not available. The subspecialty with the highest proportion of plaintiff verdicts was tumor 29.2%, (n = 19), and tumor also had the highest proportion of defendant verdicts 26.40%, (n = 33). The average verdict amount awarded to plaintiffs was $5,592,703, while the average settlement amount was $2,751,807. CONCLUSIONS: The authors highlight several risk factors for medical malpractice claims across cranial neurosurgery. These results suggest that litigation may be mitigated with accurate and timely diagnosis, timely referrals and coordinated care.

An Updated Analysis of Body Contouring Malpractice Cases.

Body contouring procedures are commonly performed in the United States for patients seeking to sculpt specific areas of their bodies. The aim of this study was to provide an updated analysis of the factors that influence medical malpractice litigation surrounding body contouring surgery. The following terms were used to search the Westlaw Campus Legal research Database for cases with earliest documentation after January 2013: ("contouring" OR "abdominoplasty" OR "liposuction" OR "tummy tuck" OR "body lift" OR "thigh lift" OR "arm lift" OR "brachioplasty" OR "thighplasty" OR "lipectomy" OR "panniculectomy") AND "surgery" AND "medical malpractice." Cases were only included if there was a complaint of medical malpractice subsequent to a body contouring procedure, and details of the cases were provided. Information was collected on the location of the lawsuit, the earliest year of available case documentation, patient demographics, procedure(s) performed, alleged injury, specialty involvement, and verdicts. A total of 32 cases were included in the study. Most of the patients involved in the cases were women (n = 30, 93.8%) and alive (n = 28, 87.5%). New York state had the most cases (n = 7, 21.9%). Abdominoplasty (56.3%), liposuction (53.1%), and buttock augmentations (15.6%) were the most common procedures. Plastic surgeons were involved in 93.8% (n = 30) of the cases, and anesthesia, emergency medicine, dermatology, and oncology were also involved. Claims of malpractice most often discussed negligent technique (71.9%) and poor postoperative management (62.5%). Common postoperative complications were infection/sepsis (40.6%), scarring (31.3%), and emotional distress/prolonged pain (31.3%). One available ruling was in favor of the plaintiff. Although many of the cases in this analysis cited negligent technique, none were founded in their argument. Because involvement in these cases can place a burden on attending physicians, clear expectations of postoperative infections, scarring, and prolonged pain should be addressed during the informed consent process.

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.

Medical malpractice litigation and daylight saving time.

Daylight saving time (DST) constitutes a natural quasi-experiment to examine the influence of mild sleep loss and circadian misalignment. We investigated the acute effects of spring transition into DST and the chronic effects of DST (compared to standard time) on medical malpractice claims in the United States over three decades. We analyzed 288,432 malpractice claims from the National Practitioner Data Bank. To investigate the acute effects of spring DST transition, we compared medical malpractice incidents/decisions one week before spring DST transition, one week following spring DST transition, and the rest of the year. To investigate the chronic effects of DST months, we compared medical malpractice incidents/decisions averaged across the 7-8 months of DST versus the 4-5 months of standard time. With regard to acute effects, spring DST transitions were significantly associated with higher payment decisions, but not associated with the severity of medical incidents. With regard to chronic effects, the 7-8 DST months were associated with higher average payments and worse severity of incidents than the 4-5 standard time months. The mild sleep loss and circadian misalignment associated with DST may influence incidence of medical errors and decisions on medical malpractice payments both acutely and chronically.

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Medical Malpractice Litigation after Spine Surgery in Beijing Between 2013 and 2018”

Letter to the Editor Regarding “Medical Malpractice Litigation after Spine Surgery in Beijing Between 2013 and 2018”

Never events in plastic surgery: An analysis of surgical burns and medical malpractice litigation

IntroductionBurns and fires in the operating room are a known risk and their prevention has contributed to many additional safety measures. Despite these safeguards, burn injuries contribute significantly to the medical malpractice landscape. The aim of the present study is to analyze malpractice litigation related to burn and fire injuries in plastic and reconstructive surgery, identify mechanisms of injury, and develop strategies for prevention. MethodsThe Westlaw and LexisNexis databases were queried for jury verdicts and settlements in malpractice lawsuits related to burn and fire injuries that occurred during plastic surgery procedures. The Boolean terms included “burn & injury & plastic”, “fire & injury & “plastic surg!”” in Westlaw, and “burn & injury & “plastic surg!””, “fire & injury & “plastic surg!”” in LexisNexis. ResultsA total of 46 cases met the inclusion criteria for this study. Overheated surgical instruments and cautery devices were the most common mechanisms for litigation. Plastic surgeons were defendants in 40 (87%) cases. Of the included cases, 43% were ruled in favor of the defendant, while 33% were ruled in favor of the plaintiff. Mishandling of cautery devices 6 (13%), heated surgical instruments 6 (13%), and topical acids 2 (4%) were the most common types of errors encountered. ConclusionNever events causing burn injury in plastic and reconstructive surgery are ultimately caused by human error or neglect. The misuse of overheated surgical instruments and cauterizing devices should be the focus for improving patient safety and reducing the risk of medical malpractice. Forcing functions and additional safeguards should be considered to minimize the risk of costly litigation and unnecessary severe harm to patients.

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.

Medical malpractice litigation following humeral fractures in the United States

Background The purpose of this study is to characterize malpractice claims against orthopedic surgeons treating humeral fractures and determine factors associated with plaintiff verdicts and settlements. Methods The Westlaw legal database was queried for all cases involving humeral fractures. Patient demographics, causes cited for litigation, case outcomes, and indemnity payments were collected to determine common factors that lead plaintiffs to pursue legal action. Results Fifty-seven cases were identified that met inclusion criteria. The mean plaintiff age was 52.5 years with 61% female. The most common category of negligence was treatment error, which occurred in 29 claims (51%). The most common types of damages incurred were functional limitation (40%), nerve injury (32%), and malunion/nonunion (26%). Overall, 42 cases (74%) resulted in a defense verdict. Four cases (7%) resulted in settlements and 11 cases (19%) resulted in plaintiff verdicts. Cases that resulted in plaintiff verdicts or settlements were treated with intramedullary nails more often than those with defense verdicts (27% vs. 4.8%, p = 0.036). Discussion These findings highlight the importance of effective communication with patients regarding treatment modalities, risks and benefits, and prognosis of their injury. Level of evidence IV; Case Series using Large Database; Epidemiology Study

An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation Involving Orbital Fractures

An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation Involving Orbital Fractures

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

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

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.

Foetal patients, surgeons, and medical negligence: An insight for a new legislation

Foetal interventions are the direct result of developments in the field of medicine. The scientific advancements opened the way for pregnant women to select the treatment of the foetus ‘in utero’. This is an option available when the pregnant woman is reluctant to terminate the pregnancy on the grounds of congenital abnormalities of the foetus. Further, treatment of the foetus is considered a psychological relief to pregnant women who otherwise had to wait until the birth of the child to remedy the defects. The predominant method of treatment of the foetus is ‘foetal surgery’ which facilitates the treatment of the foetus in the womb. This demarcates the treatment of the fatal conditions of the foetus through invasive procedures or open surgery. The problem that arises in this context is whether the foetal surgeons exercise a medical duty of care towards the foetus. The problem is aggravated when the viable foetuses become patients as such patients have the potential to survive outside the womb (ex-utero) irrespective of the destruction of the life of the mother. Medical negligence and a course of action for medical malpractice litigation are established only upon the proof of the existence of a medical duty of care and the breach of it. This paper aims to provide insight into legislation on the medical negligence of surgeons performing surgeries on foetuses. The methodology adopted in the paper is qualitative in nature and a comparative legal analysis with the jurisdiction of the United States of America (USA). The paper's conclusion holds that foetal surgeons legally undertake to act for the benefit of foetal patients and have an obligation to avoid negligence.

Water, a powerful tool in surgery

Inflammation of the gallbladder, also known as acute cholecystitis, may be caused by infection and inflammation of the gallbladder wall due to bile stasis, with or without gallstones. It is one of the most common surgical procedures that are performed laparoscopically. Gangrenous gallbladders are one of the most difficult conditions to treat clinically and surgically, being the cause of many medical malpractice litigations. Gangrenous gallbladders constitute 15% of all laparoscopic surgeries, with the cost of these surgeries being approximately $48,000, compared to other laparoscopic gallbladder surgeries being around $7,000. Dr.Dinesh Vyas and his team have worked together to develop the novel HydroLap, which is a tool that utilizes hydrodissection technology during laparoscopic cholecystectomies to remove the delicate, dead tissue while preserving the healthy tissue of surrounding structures. This decade-long journey began in the operating room and resulted in an innovation that is awaiting Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for use in 2023.

An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation due to Intravenous Steroid Treatment for Acute Spinal Cord Injury.

Retrospective cohort study. To evaluate the incidence of litigation due to using or foregoing methylprednisolone (MP), naloxone, or tirilazad for treatment of acute spinal cord injury (ASCI) through querying the Westlaw and VerdictSearch databases. There is historic controversy regarding the use of intravenous steroids for treatment of ASCI. Many highlight that MP continues to be used for ASCI treatment mainly as a defensive medicine tactic due to the fear of malpractice litigation. Westlaw and VerdictSearch were queried for cases involving steroid treatment for ASCI between the years 1998 and 2021. Collected data for each case included year of case hearing, verdict ruling, location of filed claim, and the plaintiff's basis of litigation. Cases were reviewed and categorized by two independent reviewers based on the grievance(s) levied by the plaintiff. Inclusion criteria for topic relevance was defined as a plaintiff's basis of litigation resting on a claim of medical malpractice due to the use, or lack thereof, of MP, naloxone, or tirilazad for treatment of ASCI. Upon review of 238 cases, case claims were grouped into five categories based on reason for litigation: Social Security benefits (171), lawsuit due to vaccination (25), medical malpractice unrelated to steroid use (16), fungal infections due to MP injections (4), and other (22). Zero cases were found to be related to lawsuits filed due to steroid use or lack thereof for ASCI treatment. Our findings suggest there is limited risk of malpractice litigation due to steroid use or lack thereof in the treatment of ASCI. As such, steroid-related treatment decisions for ASCI should be informed by evidence-based approaches to care not influenced by medicolegal concerns.

Medical Malpractice Litigation After Spine Surgery in Beijing Between 2013 and 2018

The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of medical alleged malpractice litigation involving spine surgery in Beijing between 2013 and 2018. Two online legal databases, Wusong and Weike, were queried for court verdicts involving spine surgery from Jan 2013 to Dec 2018 in Beijing. For all included cases, data pertaining to defendants, plaintiffs, case outcomes, allegations, and verdicts were abstracted, and descriptive analyses were performed. A total of 186 legal cases were identified, and 122 cases were excluded due to irrelevance or insufficient information. Of the 64 cases included in this investigation, 40.6% of them were male. The mean age of the plaintiffs was 53.2 ± 18.6 years. The most common complaint addressed in this study is inadequate consent (53.1%, n=34), followed by additional surgery required (40.2%, n=26), being unsatisfied with the outcome of surgery (17.6%, n=11), postoperative paralysis (15.6%, n=10) and postoperative infection (15.6%, n=10). The most common primary disease among all the cases is lumbar spinal stenosis (28.1%, n=18), followed by spinal tumor (18.8%, n=12), cervical spondylosis (17.2%, n=11), vertebral fracture (14.1%, n=9), deformity (12.5%, n=8) and others (9.3%, n=6). Spine surgeons successfully defended themselves in 13 cases (20.3%), which resulted in no indemnity payment. The rest 51 cases (79.7%) were closed with an average verdict payout of US $22597, which was significantly lower than the average compensation claimed by the plaintiff (US $113762) (p < 0.05). This study comprehensively summarized the medical alleged malpractice litigation following spine surgery in Beijing. Given the rapid growth rate of spine surgery and the burden of related medical alleged malpractice litigation, it is very valuable for spine surgeons to understand the potential legal impact of spine surgery. The most common complaint addressed in this study is inadequate consent. The findings in the presenting study highlight that in China, spine surgeons should pay more attention to communication with patients and perform spine surgeries based on abnormal imaging as opposed to what the history and physical examination dictate, which can help reduce the litigation rate and improve the patient experience.

Risk Management: Gaining Control of Medical Malpractice Litigation

The purpose of risk management is to anticipate a crisis and prepare an actionable strategy, which accurately predicts the most successful outcome for the crisis. For doctors, a malpractice lawsuit is a crisis. It is always foreshadowed by a complication from a medical intervention. The complication can result from a medical error. However, it, also, can result from an error-of-nature. CCC+C is a risk management tool that is data driven and uses the scientific method to define, measure, analyze, improve, and control processes so that a medical error can be distinguished from an error-of-nature with 95% confidence. An error-of-nature is not preventable but a resulting frivolous lawsuit can be dismissed. Likewise, a medical error is preventable and a resulting meritorious lawsuit can be settled. Both outcomes depend on damage control. CCC+C is the damage control tool. When used by doctors as soon as a complication occurs, it manages all other obstacles presenting upstream from actuaries in medical malpractice insurance companies, plaintiff attorneys, defense attorneys and medical experts. In court, CCC+C is a forensic science designed to work in the same way as ACE+V, which is a forensic science that identifies fingerprints. Lastly, because CCC+C is transparent, it exposes unscrupulous tactics by any party on either side of litigation. It accurately predicts outcomes and controls litigation because it effectively protects from, defends against and prevents unscrupulous tactics. Therefore, CCC+C is a game changer in the arena of medical malpractice litigation.&#x0D;

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.

Factors Associated with Court Outcomes of Medical Malpractice Litigations Involving Breast Reductions: 1990 to 2020.

Up to 7.4% of physicians in the United States face the risk of undergoing medical malpractice litigation each year. Breast reduction operations are performed often, but specific factors of breast reduction malpractice litigation associated with the outcome and indemnity payments to plaintiffs are unknown. Using the Westlaw legal database, the authors analyzed plaintiff and defendant characteristics, alleged reasons for malpractice, case outcomes, and payments to plaintiffs among medical malpractice lawsuits involving breast reductions with final jury verdicts or settlements, using logistic regressions. Ninety-six malpractice litigations with jury verdicts or settlements involving breast reduction operations between 1990 and 2020 met the authors' inclusion/exclusion criteria. The average reported plaintiff age was 39 ± 15 years. A total of 28% ± 29.2%, 48% ± 50.0%, and 20% ± 20.8% cases occurred in the 1990 to 1999, 2000 to 2009, and 2010 to 2020 periods, respectively; 15% ± 15.6% of cases were held in New York. Most cases were in favor of defendants [ n = 65 (67.7%)]. Among 14 cases (14.6%) with nipple malpositioning as a sustained injury, eight of them (57.1%) were ruled in favor of plaintiffs. Nipple malpositioning had increased odds of plaintiff verdict or settlement versus defendant verdict (OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.74; P = 0.03). Median payments to plaintiffs were $221,348 (range, $4375 to $3,500,000) for plaintiff verdicts and $650,000 (range, $250,000 to $750,000) for settlements. Most breast reduction malpractice litigations were ruled in favor of defendants. Nipple positioning should be taken into high consideration by plastic surgeons performing breast reductions to avoid malpractice litigation and indemnity payments.

Analysis of Reasons for Medical Malpractice Litigation due to Epidural Steroid Injection

Introduction: Administration of Epidural Steroid Injection (ESI) increased approximately 99% from 2000 to 2014. Analysis of reasons for malpractice claims due to ESI may provide insight into methods to improve patient care. This study analyzed malpractice claims due to ESI using two well established legal databases