A look inside the courtroom: an analysis of 292 cosmetic breast surgery medical malpractice cases.

BACKGROUND: Malpractice claims affect the cost and quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: The authors examine litigation in cosmetic breast surgery and identify factors influencing malpractice litigation outcomes. METHODS: The Westlaw database was searched for jury verdict and settlement reports related to medical malpractice and cosmetic breast surgeries. Cases included for analysis were examined for year, geographic location, patient demographics, procedure performed, alleged injury, causes of action, verdict, and indemnity payments. RESULTS: Of 292 cases, the most common injury sustained was disfigurement (53.1%). Negligent misrepresentation had a 98% greater chance of resolution in favor of the plaintiff (relative risk [RR], 1.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.41-2.79), and fraud had a 92% greater chance of disposition in favor of the plaintiff (RR, 1.92; 95% CI, 1.32-2.80). The most common causes of action cited were negligence (88.7%) and lack of informed consent (43.8%). One hundred sixty-nine (58.3%) cases resulted in favor of the defendant and 121 (41.7%) cases were disposed in favor of the plaintiff; 97 (33.4%) cases resulted in damages awarded and 24 (8.3%) cases resulted in settlement. No significant difference was found between the medians of indemnity payments awarded to plaintiffs ($245 000) and settlements ($300 000). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, negligent or intentional misrepresentation strongly favors plaintiffs in either awarded damages or settlements in cases of cosmetic breast surgery litigation. This study emphasizes that transparency and adequate communication are at the crux of the physician-patient relationship and are tools by which plastic surgeons may reduce the frequency of litigations, thereby containing health care costs at a minimum.

Beyond the operating room: a look at legal liability in body contouring procedures.

BACKGROUND: Malpractice claims affect the cost and quality of health care. OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors examine legal litigation following body contouring surgery and identify factors influencing malpractice litigation outcomes. METHODS: The Westlaw legal database was searched for jury verdict and settlement reports related to body contouring procedures and medical malpractice. Cases included for analysis were examined for year of report, geographic location, patient demographics, procedure performed, alleged injury, causes of action, verdict, and indemnity payments. RESULTS: Of 113 cases, the most common injuries sustained were disfigurement (33.6%) and the necessitation of a revision procedure (33.6%). The most common cause of action cited was negligence (84.1%). Median plaintiff ages differed significantly (P = .003) between cases favoring the defendant (44.5 years) and those favoring the plaintiff (36 years). Of the alleged injuries, those cases citing an iatrogenic injury were 2.5 times more likely to result in either damages awarded or settlement (relative risk [RR], 2.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.66-3.80). Cases that cited disfigurement were 87% more likely to result in damages awarded to the plaintiff (RR, 1.87; 95% CI, 1.08-3.26). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study of body contouring litigation, younger plaintiff age and iatrogenic injury strongly favored plaintiffs in either awarded damages or a settlement. Disfigurement favored plaintiffs only in awarded damages. Our study emphasizes the need for adequate communication with the patient explaining realistic aesthetic results and risks of the procedure. In addition, iatrogenic organ injury must be handled expeditiously. Incorporating these recommendations into clinical practice may promote an improved physician-patient relationship while reducing litigatious health care costs.