Medical Malpractice Suits Research Articles

Bad Results or Medical Malpractice in Pain Medicine: Ways to Prevent a Suit and What to Do Once a Suit Is Inevitable: Table 1

An unfortunate reality of medical practice is that many clinicians will be a target of malpractice litigation during their career. This article describes the critical issues involved in understanding malpractice law. We examine the differences between a malpractice suit and a bad outcome. The article also examines the actions a physician can take to improve their litigation risks and outcomes. The critical factors needed to defend a physician in a medical malpractice suit are also detailed. Conclusion. This article discusses how to prevent malpractice litigation against an interventional pain physician and the appropriate actions once a bad result has occurred.

Criminal Prosecutions of Physicians Providing Palliative or End-of-Life Care

Although medical malpractice suits commonly occur in medical practice, few physicians experienced criminal prosecution related to adverse clinical outcomes before 1990. Criminal prosecutions of physicians increased in frequency early in that decade, however, including a handful of cases involving palliative or end-of-life care. Reviews published around the end of the 1990s examined those prosecutions, listing causative factors and offering recommendations to prevent further cases. In this paper, we provide an updated review of criminal prosecutions of physicians providing palliative or end-of-life care, presenting three cases that occurred after 1998. We summarize these newer cases' chronologies and outcomes, comparing them to cases described in past reviews. Our analysis suggests that important factors not described in earlier reviews, especially conflicting views of the standard of care in hospice and palliative medicine, contributed to the development of these prosecutions.

Medical malpractice actions: procedural elements

Medical malpractice suits are intensely anxiety-provoking for physicians, in part because of the foreignness of legal terminology and procedure that accompanies them. Consultations with attorneys in such matters may be confusing, and the sequence of necessary legal steps, after the filing of a complaint against the physician, can appear to be arcane and laborious. This brief discussion outlines the legal terminology and procedure that are part of any tort action--including malpractice--with the goal of reducing unfamiliarity with those elements on the part of physicians.

The medical malpractice myth

American health care is in crisis because of exploding medical malpractice litigation. Insurance premiums for doctors and malpractice lawsuits are skyrocketing, rendering doctors both afraid and unable to afford to practice medicine. Undeserving victims sue at the drop of a hat, egged on by greedy lawyers, and receive eye-popping awards that insurance companies, hospitals, and doctors struggle to pay. plaintiffs and lawyers always win; doctors, and the nonlitigious, always lose; and affordable health care is the real victim. This, according to Tom Baker, is the myth of medical malpractice, and as a reality check he offers The Medical Malpractice Myth, a stunning dismantling of this familiar, but inaccurate, picture of the health care industry. Are there too many medical malpractice suits? No, according to Baker; there is actually too much medical malpractice, with only a fraction of the cases ever seeing the inside of a courtroom. Is too much litigation to blame for the malpractice insurance crisis? No, for that we can look to financial trends and competitive behavior in the insurance industry. Point by point, Baker - a leading authority on insurance and law - pulls together research that demolishes the myths that have taken hold and suggests a series of legal reforms that would help doctors manage malpractice insurance while also improving patient safety and medical accountability. The Medical Malpractice Myth is a book aimed squarely at general readers but with radical conclusions that speak to the highest level of domestic policymaking.

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

LETTERS TO THE EDITORS

The Forensic Aspects of Dysphagia

The Forensic Aspects of Dysphagia

Living Donor Kidney Transplant: Medicolegal and Insurance Aspects

Kidney transplantation is quite a routine complex procedure, not without risks and consequences to the donor, the recipient, and the health care professionals. Kidney-related medical malpractice suits are growing rapidly, and for clinicians and surgeons, the risk of being sued can be only reduced by practicing high-quality medicine and by appropriately communicating with donors and recipients. Actually relevant guidelines are available including safety and quality assurance standards for procurements, preservation, processing, and distribution for organs to maximize their quality and thereby the rate of success of transplants and to minimize the risk of such a procedure. We also find it essential that practice of living donor kidney transplant is in line with the general rules of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and its Additional Protocol. In this article, financial incentives and insurance aspects related with living donors kidney transplants are also illustrated.

Professional Oversight of Expert Testimony Austin v American Association of Neurological Surgeons

Introduction Neurosurgeon Donald Austin was suspended for 6 months by the American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS), a voluntary medical association. AANS gave as cause for the suspension Austin's irresponsible testimony while serving as an expert witness. Austin sued AANS for violation of his due process rights, claiming that AANS had vengefully suspended him after he testified as an expert witness on behalf of a patient in a medical malpractice suit brought against another member of AANS, Dr. Q. Michael Ditmore [1].

Empirical Study of Civil Justice Systems: A Look at the Literature

The exploitation of empirical methodologies has had a late start in law compared with other social sciences. Though there have been consistent calls/or the scientific study of law-related problems since the late 1800s. the main impetus to actually begin conducting sophisticated and useful empirical studies has come from outside the profession, starting mainly in the 1950s. Since then, a growing number of evidence-based studies of legal topics have appeared, some authored by those trained in the law, others by those trained in other disciplines, often as collaborative efforts, and occasionally by scholars trained in both the law and empirical methodology. Prominent subjects have been the behaviour of juries, procedural justice, case loads in specific court systems, judicial decision-making, the legal profession, the impact of law on society and trends in specific types of cases, especially medical malpractice and product liability suits. This fluorescence seems to have tailed off somewhat since the late 1980s. What follows is an informal, non-exhaustive look at empirical studies relating to the reform of civil procedure and the improvement of the administration of civil justice.

The American Board of Vascular Surgery and the law: fact and fiction.

The need for the establishment of an independent American Board of Vascular Surgery (ABVS) remains controversial. The controversy involves both medical and legal issues. These issues include medical malpractice, the attempt to create a "monopoly" by vascular surgeons, and the hospital credentialing of surgeons to perform vascular procedures. In this article, the legal impact of an independent ABVS on the filing of medical malpractice suits against vascular surgeons is explored. In addition, the legal criteria necessary to establish a monopoly, as well as criteria for hospital credentialing, are also reviewed. The results of this legal analysis are, first, that the establishment of an independent ABVS may well lead to a decrease in the number of frivolous lawsuits filed against vascular surgeons. Second, the establishment of an ABVS does not constitute the creation of a monopoly. Finally, hospital credentialing should not, and will not, be directly affected by the establishment of an independent ABVS.

Charity and the American Jury: Exploring the Relationship Between Plaintiffs Need-Based Arguments and Juror Verdicts in Medical Malpractice Suits

Critics of the American jury system argue that jurors have “turned the legal system into a charity program” where jurors' verdicts are based more on plaintiff “neediness” than on the factual merits of the case. This study tests this and associated claims by varying the plaintiff attorney's need-based arguments in a simulated medical malpractice case. While findings indicated that the mock jurors were aware of the plaintiffs need, the results did not support claims that jurors are swayed by such arguments. Other findings of interest include the following: women allocated greater fault to the physician than did men; the amount of fault awarded to the physician was associated with participants' view of the physician's ability to pay; and, participants exposed to the high-need condition viewed the plaintiff as less responsible for her health care than those exposed to other conditions.

Medical Malpractice Countersuits

International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery and Aesthetic DermatologyVol. 4, No. 2 Law and MedicineMedical Malpractice CountersuitsMelvin A. ShiffmanMelvin A. ShiffmanSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:5 Jul 2004https://doi.org/10.1089/153082002760331135AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB Permissions & CitationsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 4Issue 2Jun 2002 To cite this article:Melvin A. Shiffman.Medical Malpractice Countersuits.International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery and Aesthetic Dermatology.Jun 2002.139-141.http://doi.org/10.1089/153082002760331135Published in Volume: 4 Issue 2: July 5, 2004PDF download

Medical malpractice and legal resolution systems in Japan.

Medical malpractice claims and dispute resolution systems have been examined in Western societies for their impact on the quality of care and efficient compensation for injured patients. However, little is known about the Japanese malpractice environment because claim information has been closely guarded. Based on data from the Japanese Supreme Court, the Ministry of Health, Labor, and Welfare (formerly the Ministry of Health and Welfare), and the Japan Medical Association (JMA), which provides malpractice insurance to 43.5% of Japan's 250 000 physicians, we review Japanese malpractice liability systems and the frequency of claims during the last 30 years. Annual premiums for physician professional liability insurance are relatively low (454 dollars-491 dollars). Although the frequency of claims in Japan is lower than that reported in the United States, England, and Germany, the number of claims is increasing in Japan. According to publicly available data from the Japanese Supreme Court, the annual number of medical malpractice suits filed in district courts has increased from 102 in 1970 to 629 in 1998 (from 0.09 to 0.25 per 100 physicians). The proportion of awards greater than 89 dollars 300 increased from 13.6% in 1976 to 65.4% in 1987. Among JMA members, claims increased 31% from 1987 to 1999, but the frequency of claims has remained at approximately 0.3 per 100 JMA members. The JMA's professional liability program offers a nonbinding out-of-court review of claims that is faster and less expensive than judicial resolution (a few months with no attorney required vs 35 months and attorney fees), but is a poor means of deterrence or discipline. Since JMA data represent only 43.5% of Japanese physicians, generalizations cannot be made about all Japanese physicians and institutions. The lack of data on all claims hinders adequate evaluation of dispute resolution methods, development of appropriate risk management activities, and proactive education for Japanese physicians.

Coping with a medical malpractice suit.

In this article, I discuss how and why physicians react to an accusation of malpractice and the range of strategies that they can use to diminish the emotional disequilibrium that accompanies this experience. Information presented here is based on survey and interview studies and extensive clinical experience. ​experience.,​, Table 1 Before the complaint: useful attributes of clinicians Competent practice, including good risk-management procedures Adequate self-knowledge A balanced personal and professional life A capacity for intimacy and sharing Good relationships with patients, their families, and other health professionals View it in a separate window Table 2 Common postcomplaint experiences Symptoms may develop during any of these stages when adequate coping fails The complaint is served: initial feelings of surprise, shock, outrage, anxiety, or dread Consultation with lawyer: depending on the initial assessment of the case, reactions of anger, denial, concern, reassurance, panic Lengthy period of denials and intrusions: active attempts to erase thoughts about the case, followed by automatic reminders and intrusive thoughts about it; becoming preoccupied by ruminating excessively—exacerbated whenever case-related activity increases, such as before the deposition, when experts testify, and before and during the trial Working through the lengthy process, during which physicians psychologically and intellectually “process” the meaning of the case, their role in it, and their approach to their own defense Relative completion of response: physicians change in many ways as a result of being sued; ideally, adaptations lead to greater competence and a more satisfying personal and professional life View it in a separate window Medical work is highly stressful, and physicians increasingly feel loss of control over their clinical decision making. Nonetheless, most physicians are competent and achieve a reasonable level of satisfaction in their personal and professional lives that serves as good preparation for managing the litigation experience (box 1). Physicians are especially challenged, however, when an unexpected outcome—such as an unanticipated death—occurs. If this event is followed by a charge of malpractice, they may feel suddenly over-whelmed and “out of control,” with their ability to function temporarily compromised.

The febrile child-missed meningitis and bacteremia

Children with fever often present to the emergency department (ED) for cart. Most have self-limited viral infections; some have life-threatening bacterial infections. Misdiagnosis of children with sepsis and meningitis are among the most common and most costly course for medical malpractice suits in emergency medicine. Unfortunately, there are no foolproof guidelines to prevent error in diagnosing a febrile child. Physicians are advised to use great caution if a febrile infant remains irritable and has persistent vomiting or lethargy during evaluation in the ED. If a patient does not seem improved after a period of observation and perhaps dehydration, hospital admission and empirical antibiotics arc recommended. Use particular caution when evaluating a child with fever and a petechial rash. Meticulous documentation of care provided to febrile infants and children may prevent a lawsuit in the cent of a poor outcome. In addition, it is imperative to arrange follow-up within 12 to 24 hours when there is concern about a baby's condition or when an infant's illness warranted a sepsis work-up. A follow-up phone call to the child's family may help clarify instructions and identify problems. Febrile patients who return to the ED for additional care should be carefully re-examined.

Is it effective to file medical malpractice litigations and the names of hospitals and physicians involved on the Internet or not?

Background: It was recently debated in the media that filing names of hospitals and physicians involved in medical malpractice suits on the Internet may create incentives for hospitals and physicians to improve their quality of care. Also, with improved quality of care, it may curb the need for expensive litigations.Methods: Different arguments pertinent to such a decision, in terms of effectiveness, efficacy, efficiency, and practicability, are considered.

The Deposition: The Defendant’s Perspective

A positive, well-prepared deposition may be the best defense in a medical malpractice suit that ultimately may change the course of a physician's career. In this article, the author explains the purpose, format, and overall significance of the deposition and offers advice on how best to handle it. The author enumerates the steps that the defendant should take before, during, and after the deposition.

The defendant in a medical malpractice suit: an integral part of the defense team

This article explains the litigation process of a medical malpractice suit and offers suggestions to help pediatric radiologists cope with the stress of being sued. It provides tangible ways in which the pediatric radiologist can become an important part of the defense team. Our goal is to enable the pediatric radiologist to place the lawsuit in a proper perspective and demonstrate the importance of providing medical insight to aid in forming legal strategy.

Medical malpractice in twentieth century United States. The interaction of technology, law and culture.

Although medical malpractice litigation in the United States has generated extensive professional and scholarly attention, few analyses of the issue have explored its underlying causes. This essay develops and employs an historical framework to explain the late 20th century phenomenon and concludes that widespread medical malpractice suits are the result of a combination of short-term topical causes and long-term cultural changes that are ignored or left untouched by most reform efforts. Most importantly, however, the development and proliferation of new and improved medical technologies has played a pivotal role throughout the entire history of the litigation, an effect that has become most prominent and important in the last third of the 20th century.

Making attributions to the physician following closing arguments of a simulated medical malpractice suit: jurors' sex, health locus of control, and locus of authority.

This study examined jurors' health locus of control, locus of authority, sex, and attribution assigned to the physician in a simulated trial by subject-jurors. Subjects viewed videotaped closing arguments of a fictionalized medical malpractice case and assigned fault to each party in the case. The primary finding was that women tended to assign greater responsibility (57.00%) to the physician than did men (37.92%).