Retrospective Analysis of US Litigations Involving Dermatologists From 2011 to 2022.

BACKGROUND: Physician malpractice lawsuits are climbing, and the reasons underlying litigation against dermatologists are unclear. OBJECTIVE: To determine the reasons patients pursue litigation against dermatologists or dermatology practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective analysis of all state and federal cases between 2011 and 2022 was performed after a query using "Dermatology" and "dermatologist" as search terms on 2 national legal data repositories. RESULTS: The authors identified a total of 48 (37 state and 11 federal) lawsuits in which a practicing dermatologist or dermatology group practice was the defendant. The most common reason for litigation was unexpected harm (26 cases, 54.2%), followed by diagnostic error (e.g. incorrect or delayed diagnoses) (16 cases, 33.3%). Six cases resulted from the dermatologist failing to communicate important information, such as medication side effects or obtaining informed consent. Male dermatologists were sued at a rate 3.1 times higher than female dermatologists. CONCLUSION: Although lawsuits from patients against dermatologists largely involve injury from elective procedures, clinicians should practice caution regarding missed diagnoses and ensure critical information is shared with patients to safeguard against easily avoidable litigation.

Medical malpractice cases involving lack of access to dermatologists for incarcerated patients in the United States from 1982 to 2018.

While prison medicine is a heavily researched area for quality improvement, little is known regarding prisoner access to dermatologists. The goal of this study was to characterize the claims related to a lack of dermatologist access in prison malpractice cases. We searched the LexisNexis Academic database of legal records from 1970 to 2018 using the terms "medical malpractice and dermatologist" to yield federal malpractice cases involving dermatologists. Ultimately, 89 distinct cases in which a prisoner was not able to see a dermatologist were included in the final analysis. Data relating to year, location, anatomical site, symptoms, dermatologist related claim, specialty of treating physician, and final diagnosis were extracted for each case. The 89 cases involving prisoners who were not able to see a dermatologist for their skin condition ranged from 1982 to 2018, with California (n = 12) and Pennsylvania (n = 11) containing the largest number of cases. 76% of the prisoners were only treated by primary care prison physicians for their dermatologic concerns. Several issues regarding dermatologist access were categorized in this study. This study reveals limited access to dermatologists for prisoners in need of dermatologic care. Improved collaboration between prison officials, prison medical staff, and dermatologists could help improve prisoner care and limit malpractice risk.

An Analysis of Medico-legal Claims against Dermatologists in Australia from a Single Medical Indemnity Insurer.

Risk mitigation practices are essential to protecting patients from harm and reducing medical practitioner exposure to unnecessary reputational damage and economic loss. Despite traditionally being perceived as a low-risk specialty, published data on medico-legal claims against dermatologists in Australia are currently lacking. This article reviews the sources of medico-legal claims against dermatologists in Australia from a single medical indemnity insurer over the most recent three years. The failure to meet patient expectations was the largest source of claims against dermatologists, followed by adverse outcomes. Improved communication from practitioner to patient remains the most effective step to preventing medico-legal claims. Medico-legal claims, when they occur, are more successfully defended when thorough documentation processes are in place.

Characteristics of Medical Liability Claims Against Dermatologists From 1991 Through 2015.

Importance: Recognizing malpractice trends in the field of dermatology is important for establishing safeguards for patient care and minimizing liability. However, there is a lack of published data on malpractice claims against dermatologists. Objective: To determine characteristics of medical professional liability claims in the field of dermatology and to compare these claims with those against all physicians. Design, Setting, and Participants: We examined malpractice liability data collected on dermatologists and other physicians insured by companies that report data to the Physician Insurers Association of America Data Sharing Project (PIAA-DSP), a nationally representative liability claims registry. Data analyzed spanned the years 1991 through 2015. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demographic characteristics of dermatologists subject to claims, characteristics of closed claims, medical errors associated with closed claims, and patient outcomes leading to closed claims. Results: Data on a total of 90 743 closed claims were analyzed, 1084 (1.2%) against dermatologists and 89 659 (98.8%) against nondermatologists. More lawsuits were brought against male (n = 753, 69.5%) than female dermatologists (n = 270, 24.9%); 5.6% of claims (n = 61) did not identify the physician's sex. Full-time practitioners (n = 1035, 95.5%) and those in solo practice (n = 600, 55.4%) were more likely to be sued than those in group practices (n = 429, 39.6%) and institutions (n = 31, 2.9%). Most claims against dermatologists were abandoned, withdrawn, or dismissed (n = 735, 67.8%). Between 2006 and 2015, trial verdicts favoring defendants exceeded trial verdicts favoring plaintiffs by a factor of 7. Errors that occurred during a procedure spawned the most claims (n = 305), of which 102 were paid. Misdiagnoses comprised the second-highest number of claims (n = 192), of which 62 were paid. The average recovery per claim was $238 145. The most common procedure leading to claims was skin operations (420 claims, of which 130 were paid). The most common adverse patient outcome associated with claims was dyschromia, resulting in 171 claims, of which 40 were paid. Conclusions and Relevance: Male dermatologists were sued more often than female dermatologists. Overall, alleged errors in procedures and misdiagnosis gave rise to the most lawsuits. Dyschromia was the most common adverse outcome alleged in lawsuits.

Medical Malpractice in Dermatology-Part II: What To Do Once You Have Been Served with a Lawsuit.

Facing a malpractice lawsuit can be a daunting and traumatic experience for healthcare practitioners, with most clinicians naïve to the legal landscape. It is crucial for physicians to know and understand the malpractice system and his or her role once challenged with litigation. We present part II of a two-part series addressing the most common medicolegal questions that cause a great deal of anxiety. Part I focused upon risk-management strategies and prevention of malpractice lawsuits, whereas part II provides helpful suggestions and guidance for the physician who has been served with a lawsuit complaint. Herein, we address the best approach concerning what to do and what not to do after receipt of a legal claim, during the deposition, and during the trial phases. We also discuss routine concerns that may arise during the development of the case, including the personal, financial, and career implications of a malpractice lawsuit and how these can be best managed. The defense strategies discussed in this paper are not a guide separate from legal representation to winning a lawsuit, but may help physicians prepare for and cope with a medical malpractice lawsuit. This article is written from a US perspective, and therefore not all of the statements made herein will be applicable in other countries. Within the USA, medical practitioners must be familiar with their own state and local laws and should consult with their own legal counsel to obtain advice about specific questions.

Choice, Transparency, Coordination, and Quality Among Direct-to-Consumer Telemedicine Websites and Apps Treating Skin Disease.

IMPORTANCE: Evidence supports use of teleconsultation for improving patient access to dermatology. However, little is known about the quality of rapidly expanding direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine websites and smartphone apps diagnosing and treating skin disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the performance of DTC teledermatology services. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS: Simulated patients submitted a series of structured dermatologic cases with photographs, including neoplastic, inflammatory, and infectious conditions, using regional and national DTC telemedicine websites and smartphone apps offering services to California residents. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Choice of clinician, transparency of credentials, clinician location, demographic and medical data requested, diagnoses given, treatments recommended or prescribed, adverse effects discussed, care coordination. RESULTS: We received responses for 62 clinical encounters from 16 DTC telemedicine websites from February 4 to March 11, 2016. None asked for identification or raised concerns about pseudonym use or falsified photographs. During most encounters (42 [68%]), patients were assigned a clinician without any choice. Only 16 (26%) disclosed information about clinician licensure, and some used internationally based physicians without California licenses. Few collected the name of an existing primary care physician (14 [23%]) or offered to send records (6 [10%]). A diagnosis or likely diagnosis was proffered in 48 encounters (77%). Prescription medications were ordered in 31 of 48 diagnosed cases (65%), and relevant adverse effects or pregnancy risks were disclosed in a minority (10 of 31 [32%] and 6 of 14 [43%], respectively). Websites made several correct diagnoses in clinical scenarios where photographs alone were adequate, but when basic additional history elements (eg, fever, hypertrichosis, oligomenorrhea) were important, they regularly failed to ask simple relevant questions and diagnostic performance was poor. Major diagnoses were repeatedly missed, including secondary syphilis, eczema herpeticum, gram-negative folliculitis, and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Regardless of the diagnoses given, treatments prescribed were sometimes at odds with existing guidelines. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Telemedicine has potential to expand access to high-value health care. Our findings, however, raise concerns about the quality of skin disease diagnosis and treatment provided by many DTC telemedicine websites. Ongoing expansion of health plan coverage of these services may be premature. Until improvements are made, patients risk using health care services that lack transparency, choice, thoroughness, diagnostic and therapeutic quality, and care coordination. We offer several suggestions to improve the quality of DTC telemedicine websites and apps and avoid further growth of fragmented, low-quality care.

Disciplinary and Legal Actions Against Dermatologists in Canada.

BACKGROUND: Dermatologists face a litany of professional and legal risks in practice. OBJECTIVE: To review cases of disciplinary and legal action against dermatologists in Canada. METHODS: The Canadian Medical Protective Association, all 10 provincial medical colleges, and the Canadian Legal Information Institute were contacted to obtain data on legal or disciplinary action taken against dermatologists in their records. A literature review was performed regarding litigation against dermatologists in other countries. RESULTS: Six dermatologists in Canada faced disciplinary action in the last 5 to 30 years. Seven dermatologists and 5 other specialists in Canada faced lawsuits relating to dermatology in the last 1 to 144 years. Procedures and therapy are the most frequently sources of lawsuits against dermatologists both at home and abroad. CONCLUSION: Dermatologists need to remain vigilant to avoid disciplinary action and lawsuits from their increasing and varied interactions with patients.