Medical Malpractice Litigation Research Articles

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.

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.

Breast cancer medical malpractice litigation in New York: The past 10 years

Medical error is a leading cause of preventable death in the U.S., with diagnostic errors comprising the majority of errors. Delay in diagnosing breast cancer is a unique multidisciplinary phenomenon involving primary care physicians, gynecologists, radiologists, pathologists, and general surgeons. The New York medical malpractice court system remains among the most active court systems in the country. The purpose of this study is to analyze the characteristics of medical malpractice litigation involving breast cancer in New York for the past 10 years. Jury verdicts and settlements from 2007 to 2017 were obtained from a computerized legal database and were analyzed. Data pertaining to defendants, plaintiffs, case outcomes, allegations, and verdicts were collected. The study identified 48 cases of litigation pertaining to breast cancer. Overall, 14 of the verdicts were won by defendants (46.7%). Among the plaintiffs’ verdicts and settlements, the median payout was $1.8 million (mean $2.9) overall, $2.6 million (mean $4.3) for verdicts alone, and $1.68 million (mean $1.9) for settlements. The most commonly named specialty among the defendants was radiology (32) and the second was surgery (15). Inappropriate workup of mammography findings was alleged in 18 cases. The average delay to diagnosis was 13.4 months (sd 7.1). Fourteen cases involved diagnosis at stage 4, nine cases at stage 3, and fifteen at stage 2. The average verdict payout was more than two times higher than the average settlement payout. Errors leading to malpractice claims may be attributable in part to lapses in communication among medical providers involved in the workup of suspicious breast lesions.

Rethinking the Obvious: Time for New Ideas on Medical Malpractice Tort Reform.

States have engaged in medical malpractice litigation reforms over the past 30 years to reduce malpractice insurance premiums, increase the supply of physicians, reduce the cost of health care, and increase efficiency. These reforms have included caps on noneconomic damages and legal procedural changes. Despite these reforms, health care costs in the United States remain among the highest in the world, provider shortages remain, and defensive medicine practices persist. The purpose of this study was to determine how successful traditional medical malpractice reforms have been at controlling medical costs, decreasing defensive medicine practices, lowering malpractice premiums, and reducing the frequency of medical malpractice litigation. Research has shown that direct reforms and aggressive damage caps have had the most significant impact on lowering malpractice premiums and increasing physician supply. Out of the metrics that were improved by malpractice reforms, similar improvements were shown because of quality reform measures. While traditional tort reforms have shown some targeted improvement, large-scale, system-wide change has not been realized, and thus it is time to consider alternative reforms.

A Call to Restore Your Calling: Self-care of the Emergency Physician in the Face of Life-Changing Stress-Part 1 of 6.

Few practicing emergency physicians will avoid life-changing stressors such as a medical error, personal illness, malpractice litigation, or death of a patient. Many will be unprepared for the toll they will take on their lives. Some may ultimately experience burnout, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation. Medical education, continuing education, and maintenance of certification programs do not teach physicians to recognize helplessness, moral distress, or maladaptive coping mechanisms in themselves. Academic physicians receive little instruction on how to teach trainees and medical students the art of thriving through life-changing stressors in their career paths. Most importantly, handling a life-changing stressor is that much more overwhelming today, as physicians struggle to meet the daily challenge of providing the best patient care in a business-modeled health care environment where profit-driven performance measures (eg, productivity tracking, patient reviews) can conflict with the quality of medical care they wish to provide.Using personal vignettes and with a focus on the emergency department setting, this 6-article series examines the impact life-changing stressors have on physicians, trainees, and medical students. The authors identify internal constraints that inhibit healthy coping and tools for individuals, training programs, and health care organizations to consider adopting, as they seek to increase physician satisfaction and retention. The reader will learn to recognize physician distress and acquire strategies for self-care and peer support. The series will highlight the concept that professional fulfillment requires ongoing attention and is a work in progress.

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

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

04:12 PM Abstract No. 61 Medical malpractice related to inferior vena cava filter placement: how commonly are interventional radiologists named in cases?

Inferior Vena Cava (IVC) filters are commonly placed in patients who are unable to be anticoagulated. Though relatively safe, such procedures are not without risks. Complications may occur and patients may seek legal redress. There remains only a paucity of data understanding IVC filter litigation. The aim of this study was to analyze malpractice trends regarding IVC filter placement across the USA. Westlaw Next, an online legal research dataset with publicly available records throughout the USA was queried. Using the terms medical malpractice and IVC filter complications, we searched all jury verdicts and settlements focusing on IVC filter complications including: filter migration, filter fracture, embedded filter hook, and filter malposition. Social security disability claims and hospital employment contract disputes were excluded from the analysis. Factorial data collection included: patient demographics, physician specialty, alleged reason for the malpractice claim, outcome(s) of trial and awarded payment, procedural characteristics, indication for placement of IVC filter, state demographics and type of IVC filter placed. The search criteria yielded 36 case briefs for initial review; 14 cases were included after application of exclusion criteria. The most common alleged reason for malpractice litigation was damage to surrounding structures (62%). Overall 86% of cases were decided in favor of the defendant. Plain jury verdict and settlement sum was reported for one case, as a plaintiff victory of $3.64 million. Interventional radiologists were involved in only 17% cases, with both cases decided in favor of the defendant. Surgery as a combined group were involved in 50% of cases. The filter manufacturer was sued in 21% of cases, with physicians sued in 36% of cases. IVC filter medical malpractice litigations require a more in-depth analysis in light of recent media attention. Public awareness of complications related to IVC filter placement has increased secondary to recent advertising and marketing by plaintiff attorneys. Most cases were decided in favor of the defendant, with interventional radiologists playing a minor role in lawsuits.Tabled 1SpecialityNumber of LitigationsInterventional radiology2Bariatric surgeon1Cardiovascular surgeon1 (plaintiff awarded)General surgeon1Trauma surgeon1Diagnostic radiology2Internal medicine2Thoracic surgery1Vascular surgery1 Open table in a new tab

Fictions and Facts: Medical Malpractice Litigation, Physician Supply, and Health Care Spending in Texas Before and after HB 4

This article, written for a symposium issue of the Texas Tech Law Review, summarizes our research on the impact of Texas’ 2003 medical malpractice (“med mal”) reform. Our central findings include: (1) there were no major changes in the frequency of med mal claims, payout per claim, total payouts, defense costs, or jury verdicts that can explain the spike in premiums for med mal liability insurance that occurred in Texas in the years before the 2003 reforms; (2) Texas’ supply of direct patient care physicians grew steadily, at similar rates, in both the pre- and post-reform periods, despite politician’s claims that physicians fled Texas before reform and flocked back thereafter; (3) although the damage caps adopted in Texas and other states greatly reduced the volume of malpractice litigation and payouts to patients, neither in Texas nor in other states have damage caps moderated the growth of health care spending; (4) the savings in liability costs generated by the Texas reforms were shared between physicians and their insurers, with the former paying lower premiums and the latter collecting more premium dollars relative to dollars paid out on claims; and (5) there is evidence that when liability rules are relaxed, hospital safety records gradually deteriorate.

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.

Periprocedural pulmonary aspiration: An analysis of medical malpractice cases and alleged causative factors.

Pulmonary aspiration is a feared complication of anaesthesia that is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Within the small existing body of literature on medical malpractice claims related to periprocedural aspiration, very little information is available regarding the case-specific factors that were alleged to contribute to each aspiration event. This study searched an extensive nationwide database of medical malpractice claims and identified 43 relating to periprocedural pulmonary aspiration. The most common mechanism of causation cited in these claims (37%) was the failure to secure the airway with an endotracheal tube (ETT) when an elevated aspiration risk existed, most commonly because endotracheal intubation was not originally selected as part of the anaesthetic plan. The second most common alleged category of causation (33%) was the failure to perform a proper rapid-sequence induction and/or place a nasogastric tube (NGT) for decompression prior to induction. An equal amount of cases resulted in defendant versus plaintiff verdicts (44.2% each), while a settlement was reached in the remaining 11.6% of cases. These findings are generalizable to clinical practice improvement on a broader scale. They demonstrate the need to develop reliable, high-sensitivity tests for detecting elevated risk before clinicians can be expected to take special steps to protect susceptible patients, and they also show that medical malpractice can be alleged because of failure to uphold currently accepted standards of care even when the published evidence for those standards is weak. This study demonstrates that careful review of medical malpractice litigation can elucidate common contributory factors and facilitate improvements in clinical practice and decision-making.

Malpractice Litigation in Brain Tumor Surgery: A 31-Year Analysis of Causative Factors in the United States from the Westlaw Database

Medical malpractice litigation is an issue of major concern in neurosurgery, with 19.1% of neurosurgeons facing a claim annually. Neurosurgery possesses the greatest risk of malpractice of any specialty, likely owing to the complex clinical environment and disease severity. In the present study, we have characterized such litigation to determine the common factors that compel plaintiffs to file these claims. WestLawNext, a prominent legal database, was used to identify all cases from 1985 to 2016 related to brain tumors. A total of 225 cases were identified, and each was analyzed for the cause of litigation (multiple causes were permitted). Because many had >1 ground for litigation, the reported percentages were based on the total counts of litigation rather than the number of cases. Additional information was collected from each case, including location, tumor type, and physician specialty. The cases were distributed across 36 states and U.S. territories: California (n= 42; 20%) and New York (n= 28; 13%) had the greatest number of cases. The top reasons for litigation were failure to diagnose (n= 109; 28%), failure to treat (n= 72; 18%), procedural error (n=63; 16%), and failure to refer for diagnostic tests (n=55; 14%). The most common diagnoses included pituitary adenoma (n= 26; 12%), acoustic neuroma (n=27; 12%), and meningioma (n= 23; 10%). Malpractice litigation contributes to high overhead and physician burnout and escalates the cost of patient care. We found that benign brain tumors were the most common in litigation and that surgical issues accounted for only a small percentage.

In the Shadow of Litigation: Arbitration and Medical Malpractice Reform

Abstract Alongside the dramatic growth in the use of mandatory, binding arbitration in the United States, proposals to use arbitration in lieu of medical malpractice litigation have proliferated as a mechanism for providing a more efficient and less costly way to resolve disputes. However, these proposals have largely been divorced from an understanding of the history, politics, and law of arbitration, which comes with a significant cost. Although liberals developed arbitration with the goal of ensuring access to justice for those who struggled to find it in traditional courts, conservatives (both in Congress and in the private sector) began to promote it in the latter part of the 20th century as a way to keep what they considered “lesser” cases out of court and to better protect corporate and other powerful institutional defendants from litigation. This article examines this transition toward the use of private, mandatory, and binding arbitration through three periods of institutional change: partisan conversion, judicialization, and privatization. It argues that it is essential to situate malpractice reform proposals in the history, politics, and law of arbitration in practice, where partisan efforts have privatized arbitration with significant effects for equality under the law.

Medical Malpractice Litigation and the Market for Representation: Evidence from Indiana

How concentrated is the market for representation in medical malpractice (med mal) cases, whether for plaintiffs or defendants? How often do plaintiffs proceed pro se, and with what results? Do successful lawyers start off with better cases to begin with or do they add more value to the cases – or both? What law school did elite practitioners attend – and where are they located? Building on earlier work involving Illinois, we use a dataset of every med mal case filed in Indiana during 1976-2014 to identify the 2,717 plaintiff-side firms and 781 defense-side firms that handle these cases. We stratify these firms into three tiers and compare case outcomes with different tier match-ups. Finally, we use propensity score weighting to place some boundaries on the effect of representation on the chances of prevailing and on total recovery.

Characteristics of Medical Malpractice Litigation in Thailand: Cases from Government‐Run Hospitals

Current malpractice policy debates have been contentious in Thailand for years. There is a lack of a national database for malpractice claims to provide comprehensive information to policymakers; therefore, the development of policy related to malpractice has been prolonged. This study uses the best available data to create a database and describe characteristics of medical malpractice cases in Thailand during 1996–2016. Like many countries, cases related to pregnancy and childbirth are the most common cause of malpractice lawsuits. Unlike other countries, general practice physicians in Thailand are sued the most. The proportions of wrongful death claims were higher in community hospitals, among physician interns, and on weekends. Moreover, a no‐fault provision appears to help settling claims out of court. To develop a success policy, Thailand needs to establish a national database for malpractice claims. Furthermore, expanding the no‐fault provision to all types of health insurance could be a desirable policy.

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.

ОСОБЛИВОСТІ ДЕФЕКТІВ МЕДИЧНОЇ ДОПОМОГИ В АНЕСТЕЗІОЛОГІЇ-РЕАНІМАТОЛОГІЇ (ЗА МАТЕРІАЛАМИ СУДОВО-СЛІДЧИХ СПРАВ)

Medical malpractice litigations have become a serious social and public health problem in contemporary Ukraine, however peculiarities of improper medical care in anesthesiology is little known inside the country.The aim of the study – to evaluate the medical malpractice litigations provided by anesthesiologists in Ukraine.Materials and Methods. A retrospective review of all alleged medical malpractice cases (350 in total) between 2007 and 2016 handled at Ternopil, Zhytomyr and Chernivtsi Regional Bureaus of Forensic Medical Examination, was performed. The paper analyses official data of court verdicts in cases of medical malpractice litigations taken from Ukrainian State Register of court decisions for the same time period.Results and Discussion. 32.5 % of all of medical malpractice litigations were initiated against anesthesiologists. Lacks of health care provision committed by anesthesiologists were detected in 70.2 % of the cases. Unreasonable medical care occurred in cases of serious Unintentional medical care was confirmed by forensic medical expert commission as a rule in diagnostics (33.8 %) and medical procedures or medical treatment (26.4 %). Mistakes in medical records were detected in (24.7 %) of the cases, institutional errors – (11.1 %), ethical errors – (4.0 %). Insufficient or incomplete medical care provided by anesthesiologists seemed more frequently (44.5 %), inopportune medical care – 33.6 %, unskillful medical care 20.3 %. Severe consequences for the patients took place in all of the cases. A causal relationship between the damage claimed by the patient or his family and improper medical care were found in 30.0 % cases.Conclusions. Anesthesiologists lead the top list of physician specialties involved in claims in Ukraine. Diagnostic and institutional errors, improper performance of medical procedures and medication errors are seemed most frequently in medical malpractice cases in anesthesiology. The majority of the medical mistakes became due to different objective reasons. Approximately a half of all of the studied cases faced together with breach of standards of care followed by the poor quality of the medical personnel.

Medical practice and malpractice litigation in an evolutionary context

We model the interactions between the behaviors of physicians and patients, subject to clinical and legal risks, by means of evolutionary game theory. We propose an original game in which patients may sue their physician for medical malpractice, and physicians have to choose between two alternative treatments, with different levels of benefits and risks. The safer treatment is also the less effective, therefore its provision corresponds, under the assumptions of our model, to practicing negative defensive medicine. We study the Nash equilibria, test their stability in the replicator dynamics, and analyze their welfare properties. We find that the accuracy of the judicial system plays an important role, with possible counter-intuitive effects related to legal reforms. If the court is not sufficiently accurate, defensive medicine can be favored, paradoxically, by an increase in the probability that defensive physicians are sanctioned by the court. A similar outcome can be generated also by an increase in the compensation paid to patients by physicians, when sanctioned for medical malpractice.

Medical Malpractice Litigation Associated With Anesthesia in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Medical Malpractice Litigation Associated With Anesthesia in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

Medical Malpractice Litigation Following Arthroscopic Surgery

Our study aims to analyze a variety of factors involving malpractice lawsuits following arthroscopy, focusing on reasons for lawsuit and establishing predictors for the outcome of the lawsuit. Two legal databases, VerdictSearch and Westlaw, were queried for arthroscopic cases in adult patients. For all included cases, clinical and demographic data were recorded. The effects of plaintiff demographics, joint involved, lawsuit allegation, case ruling, and size of indemnity payments were assessed. Of the 240 included cases, 62 (26%) resulted in plaintiff verdict, 160 (67%) resulted in defense verdict, and 18 (8%) were settled without trial. Plaintiff demographics (age and sex) had no effect on the case ruling. There was no statistical difference between indemnity awards for plaintiff verdicts ($1,013,494) and settled cases ($848,331; P= .13). Patient death was noted in 20 cases (8.3%); a significantly higher proportion of these cases were settled versus went to trial (P= .0022), including 19 patients (95%) who had knee arthroscopy and 16 deaths (80%) resulting from a pulmonary embolus. Plaintiff verdict or settlement were seen significantly more frequently for vascular complications and wrong-sided surgery. Alternatively, defense verdicts followed lawsuits alleging surgeon technical error. Wrong-sided surgery, retained instruments, deep venous thrombosis, and postoperative infections were seen at a significantly higher proportion after knee arthroscopy than after arthroscopy of other joints. Similarly, neurological injury was significantly associated with elbow and hip arthroscopy, while allegations of technical error by the surgeon and block-related complications were associated with shoulder arthroscopy. Plaintiff verdict or settlement were seen for vascular complications and wrong-sided surgery, while defense verdicts followed lawsuits alleging surgeon technical error and block-related complications. We also identified types of allegations that were associated with arthroscopy of different joints. All but one case of patient death (20 cases) were noted to involve knee arthroscopy, and an overwhelming majority resulted due to a pulmonary embolism. This information helps the arthroscopic surgeon better counsel patients and employ strategies to mitigate preventable complications. Level IV, case series.