High-Risk Medicolegal Conditions in Pediatric Emergency Medicine.

The top 5 reasons for pediatric malpractice are cardiac or cardiorespiratory arrest, appendicitis, disorder of male genital organs, encephalopathy, and meningitis. Malpractice is most likely to result from an "error in diagnosis." Claims involving a "major permanent injury" were more likely to pay out money, but of all claims, only 30% result in a monetary pay out. Consideration of "high-risk misses" may help to direct a history, examination, testing, and discharge instructions.

A Century in Review: Medicolegal Implications of Facial Nerve Paralysis.

Importance: It is important to recognize factors that may mitigate the risk of a potential lawsuit and increase knowledge and awareness of physicians. Objective: To evaluate and characterize facial nerve paralysis litigation claims and related potential causes. Design, Setting, and Participants: These data were extracted from the two main computerized legal databases: WestLaw and LexisNexis. The data were queried on April 2, 2020. The records from 1919 to 2020 were obtained from a population-based setting. A total of 186 cases were included. Data were gathered for all alleged cases of facial nerve paralysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: There was a continuous rise in the amount of malpractice payments with the highest mean amount being in the past decade. Results: From 1919 to 2020, a total of 186 malpractice cases for facial nerve damage were identified. A total amount of $89,178,857.99 was rewarded to plaintiffs in 66 cases. The mean amount of paid malpractice claim was $1,351,194.80. Improper performance/treatment was the most common reason for alleged litigation (n = 97). This was followed by misdiagnosis/delayed diagnosis (n = 47), and failure of informed consent (n = 34). The highest number of malpractice claims with a total of 53 cases was from 1991 to 2000. The highest mean amount per payment was in the past decade (2011-2020) with a mean of $3,841,052.68. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the past century, improper performance/procedure, delayed/misdiagnosis, and failure of informed consent were the most common reasons for litigations related to facial nerve paralysis.

The paralyzing legal costs of facial nerve injury in head and neck tumors.

PURPOSE: Facial nerve paralysis from head and neck tumors can result from disease progression or iatrogenic causes, leading to litigation. The aim of this study was to investigate lawsuits regarding facial paralysis as a consequence of these tumors to understand and better educate physicians behind the reasons for litigation. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews were obtained from the Westlaw database from 1985 to 2018. Gathered data, including verdicts, litigation reasons, defendant specialties, and amounts awarded, were analyzed via Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: Of the 26 lawsuits analyzed, the leading reason for litigation was failure to diagnose (53.8%), followed by iatrogenic injury (34.6%). The average award was $2,704,470. Otolaryngologists were the most common defendants. Defendants that included an otolaryngologist had shorter delays of diagnosis compared to those that did not (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Failure to diagnose parotid injury was the leading cause of litigation. In instances where the jury found for the plaintiff, the amount was material. There were equivalent incidences of cases in favor of plaintiffs and defendants.

Factors and impact of physicians' diagnostic errors in malpractice claims in Japan.

BACKGROUND: Diagnostic errors are prevalent and associated with increased economic burden; however, little is known about their characteristics at the national level in Japan. This study aimed to investigate clinical outcomes and indemnity payment in cases of diagnostic errors using Japan's largest database of national claims. METHODS: We analyzed characteristics of diagnostic error cases closed between 1961 and 2017, accessed through the national Japanese malpractice claims database. We compared diagnostic error-related claims (DERC) with non-diagnostic error-related claims (non-DERC) in terms of indemnity, clinical outcomes, and factors underlying physicians' diagnostic errors. RESULTS: All 1,802 malpractice claims were included in the analysis. The median patient age was 33 years (interquartile range = 10-54), and 54.2% were men. Deaths were the most common outcome of claims (939/1747; 53.8%). In total, 709 (39.3%, 95% CI: 37.0%-41.6%) DERC cases were observed. The adjusted total billing amount, acceptance rate, adjusted median claims payments, and proportion of deaths were significantly higher in DERC than non-DERC cases. Departments of internal medicine and surgery were 1.42 and 1.55 times more likely, respectively, to have DERC cases than others. Claims involving the emergency room (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 5.88) and outpatient office (adjusted OR = 2.87) were more likely to be DERC than other cases. The initial diagnoses most likely to lead to diagnostic error were upper respiratory tract infection, non-bleeding digestive tract disease, and "no abnormality." CONCLUSIONS: Cases of diagnostic errors produced severe patient outcomes and were associated with high indemnity. These cases were frequently noted in general exam and emergency rooms as well as internal medicine and surgery departments and were initially considered to be common, mild diseases.

Emergency Radiology: An Underappreciated Source of Liability Risk.

PURPOSE: While several studies analyze radiology malpractice lawsuits, none specifically examines the site of service. The purpose of this study is to estimate the relative likelihood of a lawsuit arising from a radiology study performed in emergency (ED), inpatient (IP) and outpatient (OP) settings. METHODS: Referrals from a malpractice review consulting company over a six year period were compared to the 2016 Medicare Part B file and stratified by site of service. The proportion of exams for each site of service was estimated, and using absolute differences in proportions and odds ratios (ORs), differences in the place of service were calculated. RESULTS: The Cleareview cohort contained 25 (17%) IP, 56 (38%) OP, and 68 (46%) ED exams. In 2016, Medicare assigned benefits for 27,009,053 (20%) IP, 84,075,848 (62%) OP and 23,964,794 (18%) ED exams. The ORs (Cleareview: Medicare) of the ED to IP, OP, and IP+OP were 3.07 (95% CI: 1.56-6.03), 4.26 (95% CI: 2.76-6.59), 3.89 (95% CI: 2.60-5.83), respectively. By contrast, the OR for IP:OP between Cleareview and Medicare was not significantly different than 1 (OR: 1.39, 95% CI: 0.68-2.83, P = .38). DISCUSSION: Radiological studies performed in the ED accounted for a disproportionate number of liability claims against radiologists. Further study is warranted to confirm this finding with a more robust data set.

Evaluation of malpractice litigation in thyroid disease in the National Health Service.

Objectives: Thyroid disease is managed by primary and a range of secondary care specialties. Interventions for common thyroid conditions are effective, but delays in diagnosis, ineffective or inappropriate treatment may affect outcomes and be subject to litigation. This study aimed to analyze trends in thyroid malpractice litigation in the UK over a 14-year period.Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed negligence claims recorded by the NHS Litigation Authority from 2002 to 2016. Data on incident details, outcomes, time to settlement, costs, and specialties involved were collected and analyzed.Results: Out of 189 cases reviewed, an outcome was decided in 134 cases; of which, 67.9% were successful for the claimant, resulting in compensation being paid. The most common reasons for successful claims were treatment complications (47 cases) and delay or failure of diagnosis (22 cases). Nerve and/or vocal cord damage and hypoparathyroidism were cited in 12 and 3 cases, respectively. Common specialties involved in successful claims were general surgery, ENT and endocrinology. The median (range) costs paid for compensation were £50,701.35 (£189.00 to £4.5 million). The median (interquartile range) time from incident to settlement was 1254 (992-1756) days. The number of claims (overall and successful) has reduced over the 14-year period, but there has been no change in the total cost per successful claim from 2002 to 2014 (p = 0.151).Conclusion: This overview demonstrates common causes and identifies trends in thyroid malpractice litigation in the UK, highlighting the significant costs incurred. The outcomes of the study will provide a basis to enable clinicians to avoid potential pitfalls and formulate guidelines to minimize risk.

Pituitary and skull-base lesions and the litigious patient.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this research was to evaluate litigation relating to the diagnosis and management of pituitary and ventral skull base lesions and delineate allegations involved in the decision to pursue medicolegal proceedings. METHODS: Publically available federal and court records were accessed via the Westlaw Next database. Jury verdict and settlement reports relevant to pituitary and anterior skull-base lesions were accessed, and litigation was reviewed for alleged injuries, defendant specialty, patient demographics, and other factors raised in proceedings. RESULTS: Of 75 cases included, 50.7% were resolved in the defendant's favor. The most frequent physician specialties cited as defendants included primary care (20%), neurosurgery (17%), and radiology (16%), while otolaryngologists were defendants in only 5% of cases. Fifty-two (69%) did not involve surgical intervention; the most common allegations in these proceedings were misdiagnosis, permanent injury (19%), requiring additional procedures as a result of misdiagnosis (17%), permanent endocrine dysfunction (14%), and visual sequelae (12%). Among surgical cases, the most common allegations raised included permanent injury (17%), postoperative complications (14%), intraoperative complications (13%), and death (10%). Among cases resolved with payment, there was no statistical difference in payment between surgical cases ($5.7M) and nonsurgical cases ($4.8M). CONCLUSION: Misdiagnosis of endocrinopathy, failure to appropriately workup patients presenting with neurologic complaints, and radiologic misdiagnosis play important roles in the pursuit of litigation in nonsurgical cases. Sustaining permanent sequelae including endocrine and visual injury play an important role in surgical cases. Postoperative management appears to play just as important a role in the decision to pursue litigation as intraoperative considerations.

NHSLA litigation in hip fractures: Lessons learnt from NHSLA data.

Hip fractures are a major cause of trauma related death, usually occurring in vulnerable elderly patients. There are an estimated 70,000 hip fractures in the UK per year with numbers set to rise. The estimated annual cost to the healthcare economy is in the region of £2 billion. A 17-year review examining litigation related to hip fractures was undertaken. Under a freedom of information request, data was obtained relating to all orthopaedic claims made to the NHS Litigation Authority (NHSLA) between 1995 and 2012. Data was filtered to identify cases involving hip fractures examining litigation trends related to this specific area. 10263 NHSLA orthopaedic cases were identified, of which 13.3% (n=1364) cases related to the hip and femur. Hip fractures made up 16.7% (n=229). The total cost of hip fracture litigation was over £7 million with an average cost per case of £32,700. The commonest reasons for litigation were diagnostic errors (30.6%), issues with care (24.9%) alleged incompetent surgery (15.7%) and development of pressure sores (5.7%). This study highlights the main causes of litigation in patients sustaining hip fractures, with diagnosis in the emergency department and ward presenting a significant problem. In addition, the data identifies a range of care related issues, as well as several surgical factors and highlights the importance of pressure area care. We discuss these and make suggestions on how to improve practice in this area with the aim of improving patient care and reducing litigation.

Pediatric radiology malpractice claims - characteristics and comparison to adult radiology claims.

Medical malpractice is the primary method by which people who believe they have suffered an injury in the course of medical care seek compensation in the United States and Canada. An increasing body of research demonstrates that failure to correctly diagnose is the most common allegation made in malpractice claims against radiologists. Since the 1994 survey by the Society of Chairmen of Radiology in Children's Hospitals (SCORCH), no other published studies have specifically examined the frequency or clinical context of malpractice claims against pediatric radiologists or arising from pediatric imaging interpretation. We hypothesize that the frequency, character and outcome of malpractice claims made against pediatric radiologists differ from those seen in general radiology practice. We searched the Controlled Risk Insurance Co. (CRICO) Strategies' Comparative Benchmarking System (CBS), a private repository of approximately 350,000 open and closed medical malpractice claims in the United States, for claims related to pediatric radiology. We further queried these cases for the major allegation, the clinical environment in which the claim arose, the clinical severity of the alleged injury, indemnity paid (if payment was made), primary imaging modality involved (if applicable) and primary International Classification of Diseases, 9th revision (ICD-9) diagnosis underlying the claim. There were a total of 27,056 fully coded claims of medical malpractice in the CBS database in the 5-year period between Jan. 1, 2010, and Dec. 31, 2014. Of these, 1,472 cases (5.4%) involved patients younger than 18 years. Radiology was the primary service responsible for 71/1,472 (4.8%) pediatric cases. There were statistically significant differences in average payout for pediatric radiology claims ($314,671) compared to adult radiology claims ($174,033). The allegations were primarily diagnosis-related in 70% of pediatric radiology claims. The most common imaging modality implicated in pediatric radiology claims was radiography. The highest payouts in pediatric radiology pertained to missed congenital and developmental anomalies (average $1,222,932) such as developmental dysplasia of the hip and congenital central nervous system anomalies. More than half of pediatric radiology claims arose in the ambulatory setting. Pediatric radiology is not immune from claims of medical malpractice and these claims result in high monetary payouts, particularly for missed diagnoses of congenital and developmental anomalies. Our data suggest that efforts to reduce diagnostic error in the outpatient radiology setting, in the interpretation of radiographs, and in the improved diagnosis of fractures and congenital and developmental anomalies would be of particular benefit to the pediatric radiology community.

Dissecting malpractice in pancreaticoduodenectomy cases.

BACKGROUND: Medical malpractice is a growing concern for physicians in all fields. Surgical fields have some of the highest malpractice premiums and litigation rates. Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) has become a popular procedure; however, it is still associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study is the first to analyze factors involved in litigation regarding PD cases. METHODS: The Westlaw database was searched for jury verdicts and settlements using the terms "medical malpractice" and "pancreaticoduodenectomy". Twenty-nine cases from 1991 to 2012 were initially collected. Seven entries not involving PD and three duplicate cases were excluded. Nineteen cases were included for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 19 cases included in the analysis, three (15.8%) reached a settlement, three (15.8%) were ruled in favor of the plaintiff, and 13 (68.4%) were ruled in favor of the physician. The average settlement award was $398,333 (range, $195,000-500,000), and the average plaintiff award was $4,288,869 (range, $1,066,608-10,300,000). The most common factors raised in litigation included PD being allegedly unnecessary (47.4%), followed by postoperative negligence and misdiagnosis (36.8% each). CONCLUSIONS: The most common factors present in litigation included the allegation that PD was unnecessarily performed. The cases that are awarded large monetary sums are those that involve continued medical care. Ways to improve patient safety and limit litigation include increasing transparency and communication with a thorough discussion between surgeon and patient of the most common topics of litigation discussed.

Learning from an analysis of closed malpractice litigation involving myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the epidemiologic data, identify the pattern of dispute, and determine clinical litigious errors by analyzing closed malpractice claims involving myocardial infarction (MI) in Taiwanese courts. METHODS: A retrospective descriptive study was performed to analyze the verdicts pertaining to MI from the population-based database of the Taiwan judicial system between 2002 and 2013. The results of adjudication, involved specialists, primary dispute leading to lawsuits, and litigious errors were recorded. RESULTS: A total of 36 closed malpractice claims involving MI were included. The mean interval between the incident and litigation closure was 65.5 ± 28.3 months. Nearly 20% of the cases were judged against clinicians and the mean payment was $100639 ± 49617, while the mean imprisonment sentence was 4.3 ± 1.8 months. Cardiologists and emergency physicians were involved in 56.3% of cases, but won 92.6% of lawsuits, while other specialists lost nearly 25% of lawsuits. The most common dispute was misdiagnosis (38.9%), but this dispute had the lowest percentage of loss (7.1%). Disputes regarding delayed diagnosis were judged against the defendants in 50% of claims. Clinicians lost the lawsuit in the following conditions: 1) misdiagnosis of MI in patients with typical chest pain and known coronary artery risk factors; 2) failure to perform thoughtful evaluation and series investigations in patients suspicious of ischemic heart disease; 3) failure to perform indicated treatment to avoid disease progression. CONCLUSIONS: Medical practitioners should keep a high index of MI suspicion, especially if the diagnosis and treatment of MI are beyond their daily practice. Prudent patient reevaluation, serial ECG and cardiac enzyme testing, and early consultation are suggested to reduce malpractice liability.

Outcomes of medical malpractice claims in assisted reproductive technology over a 10-year period from a single carrier.

OBJECTIVE: Medical malpractice claims vary by specialty. Contributory factors to malpractice in reproductive endocrinology and infertility (REI) are not well defined. We sought to determine claims' frequency, basis of claims, and outcomes of settled claims in REI. DESIGN: This is a retrospective, descriptive review of 10 years of claims. SETTING: The setting is private practices. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Claims were monitored within one malpractice carrier between 2006 and 2015 covering 10 practices and 184,015 IVF cycles. Total claims, basis of claims, and indemnity paid were evaluated. RESULTS: There were 176 incidents resulting in 30 settled claims with indemnity payments in 21. Categories of claims settled included misdiagnosis (N = 4), lack of informed consent (N = 5), embryology errors (N = 8), and surgical complications (N = 4). Total and average awards were $15,062,000 and $717,238, respectively. Misdiagnosis and lack of informed consent had highest total award amount at $11,583,000 accounting for 76% of award dollars. The two highest awards were $4.5 million and $3.0 million for cancer and genetic misdiagnosis, respectively. Excluding these two awards, payments totaled $7,562,000, ranged from $6000 to $900,000 and averaged $170,363. Errors in handling of embryos were highest in frequency accounting for 38% of claims paid for a total of $1,593,000 with average payment of $199,188. Settlements for surgical complications totaled $1,855,000 and averaged $463,750 per claim. CONCLUSIONS: Misdiagnosis and lack of informed consent are the highest award categories. Embryology lab errors are the most frequent causes of claims with the lowest award per settlement. The average cost for claims settled is relatively high compared to settlements in other specialties.

Tumor screening in Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome-To screen or not to screen?

Beckwith-Wiedemann syndrome (BWS) is the most common imprinting disorder and consequently, one of the most common cancer predisposition disorders. Over the past 20 years, our understanding of the genetics and epigenetics leading to BWS has evolved and genotype/phenotype correlations have become readily apparent. Clinical management of these patients is focused on omphaloceles, hypoglycemia, macroglossia, hemihypertrophy, and tumor screening. Until recently, the need for tumor screening has been thought to be largely uniform across all genetic and epigenetic causes of BWS. As tumor risk correlates with genetic and epigenetic causes of BWS, several groups have proposed alterations to tumor screening protocols based on the etiology of BWS. However, there are many challenges inherent in adapting screening protocols. Such protocols must accommodate not only the risk based on genetic and epigenetic causes but also the medical cost-benefit of screening, the psychological impact on families, and the social-legal implications of missing a treatable tumor. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Radiology Malpractice Claims in the United States From 2008 to 2012: Characteristics and Implications.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the frequency and liability costs associated with radiology malpractice claims relative to other medical services and to evaluate the clinical context and case disposition associated with radiology malpractice claims. METHODS: This HIPAA-compliant study was exempted from institutional review board approval. The Comparative Benchmarking System database, a repository of more than 300,000 medical malpractice cases in the United States, was queried for closed claims over a five-year period (2008-2012). Claims were categorized by the medical service primarily responsible for the claim and the paid total loss. For all cases in which radiology was the primary responsible service, the case abstracts were evaluated to determine injury severity, claimant type by setting, claim allegation, process of care involved, case disposition, modality involved, and body section. Intracategory comparisons were made on the basis of the frequency of indemnity payment and total indemnity payment for paid cases, using χ(2) and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests. RESULTS: Radiology was the eighth most likely responsible service to be implicated in a medical malpractice claim, with a median total paid loss (indemnity payment plus defense cost plus administrative expense) per closed case of $30,091 (mean, $205,619 ± $508,883). Radiology claims were most commonly associated with high- and medium-severity injuries (93.3% [820 of 879]; 95% confidence interval [CI], 91.7%-94.95%), the outpatient setting (66.3% [581 of 876]; 95% CI, 63.0%-69.2%), and diagnosis-related allegations (ie, failure to diagnose or delayed diagnosis) (57.3% [504 of 879]; 95% CI, 54.0%-60.6%). A high proportion of claims pertained to cancer diagnoses (44.0% [222 of 504]; 95% CI, 39.7%-48.3%). A total of 62.3% (548 of 879; 95% CI, 59.1%-65.5%) of radiology claims were closed without indemnity payments; 37.7% (331 of 879; 95% CI, 34.5%-40.9%) were closed with a median indemnity payment of $175,000 (range, $112-$6,691,762; mean $481,094 ± $727,636). CONCLUSIONS: Radiology malpractice claims most commonly involve diagnosis-related allegations in the outpatient setting, particularly cancer diagnoses, with approximately one-third of claims resulting in payouts to the claimants.

Endodontic Risk Management: A Dento-Legal Perspective.

This article provides an overview of some of the issues in the assessment and management of endodontic patients which may lead to dento-legal problems. It covers assessment, the appropriate use of radiographs, special tests and the importance of following the correct consent process. It outlines why record-keeping is particularly important, and looks at problems that occur, such as perforation, fractured instruments and hypochlorite accidents.

[Delayed appendectomy because of diagnostic malpractice: Experiences of the Arbitration Board of the North German Medical Associations]. / Die durch Diagnosefehler bedingte Verzögerung der operativen Behandlung der akuten Appendizitis - Erfahrungen der Norddeutschen Schlichtungsstelle für Arzthaftpflichtfragen.

From 2000 to 2012, 447 panel proceedings concerning acute appendicitis were evaluated. 271 cases (57 %) were related to alleged diagnostic malpractice. This was confirmed in 176 cases (67 %). The following medical specialities were involved (m = quote of malpractice): general surgery 33 %, m = 51 %; paediatric surgery 3 %, m = 44 %; general practitioner and prehospital emergency services 24 %, m = 62 %; internal medicine 19 %, m = 70 %; paediatrics 13 %, m = 57 %; gynaecology 3 %, m = 91 %; urology 2 %, m = 17 %. The most frequent misdiagnosis was gastroenteritis (43 % in adults, 69 % in children), obviously based on the concomitant symptom of diarrhoea. Surgery revealed all stages of advanced appendicitis up to peritoneal sepsis, organic failure and death (n = 5). The evaluation of the files and the experts' reports of the 176 cases of diagnostic malpractice allowed to define the following basic failures, which led to unjustified delay of operation: careless history-taking, no or incomplete physical examination, no follow-up investigations, incorrect interpretation of the patient's complaints and clinical findings, no or incomplete documentation. Conducting a thorough investigation is essential to avoiding diagnostic malpractice. Internal analysis of failures or near failures may contribute to reducing the number of future cases of malpractice.