Litigation in gender affirming surgery: Reviewing five decades of the medical malpractice landscape.

The present study sought to analyze malpractice cases related to gender affirming surgery to provide information to physicians as it may serve to minimize the risk of malpractice suits. The Westlaw and Lexis Nexis databases were queried for jury verdicts and settlements related to gender affirming surgery malpractice lawsuits. A total of 26 cases were identified between 1970 and 2020, five of which were determined relevant on further review. Motives included adverse surgical and medical outcomes, and failure to treat. All cases were decided in favor of the defendant and resulted in $0 compensatory damages.

An Analysis of Medical Malpractice Litigation Involving Orbital Fractures.

BACKGROUND: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSION: 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.

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

INTRODUCTION: Burns 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSION: Never 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.

Scalding saline injuries: Preventing a rare but serious event in medical litigation.

This study aimed to investigate the causes, outcomes, and compensation amounts of saline-induced perioperative burns, a rare but entirely preventable event. Saline-induced burns pose a significant risk to patients, and understanding the factors associated with such incidents is crucial for improving patient safety. Previous studies highlighted the use of hot saline bags and solution during medical procedures as a potential cause of these burns. A retrospective analysis of cases involving perioperative saline-induced burns was conducted using the Westlaw and Lexis Nexis legal databases. Eight relevant cases were identified and analyzed to determine the causes, outcomes, and compensation amounts. Hot saline bags used for positioning and hot saline solution were identified as the primary causes of saline-induced burns. Out of the eight cases analyzed, four resulted in a favorable verdict for the plaintiff, three cases were settled, and one case was in favor of the defense. Compensation amounts ranged from no monetary compensation to over one million dollars. This study highlights the need for increased awareness among medical professionals regarding the risks associated with saline-induced burns, and the importance of implementing guidelines for the safe use of hot saline bags and solution. Together these measures can hopefully mitigate the occurrence of these preventable incidents, improve patient safety, and reduce medicolegal exposure.