Jury verdicts, outcomes, and tort reform features of malpractice cases involving thoracic outlet syndrome.

OBJECTIVE/BACKGROUND: Thoracic outlet syndrome (TOS) is most often referred to vascular surgeons. However, there is a lack of understanding of the malpractice cases involving TOS. The goal of this study is to better understand the medicolegal landscape related to the care of TOS. METHODS: The Westlaw Edge AI-powered proprietary system was retrospectively reviewed for malpractice cases involving TOS. A Boolean search strategy was used to identify target cases under the case category of "Jury Verdicts & Settlements" for all state and federal jurisdictions from 1970 to September 2020. The settled case was described but not included in the statistical analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to report our findings, and when appropriate. The P ≤ .05 decision rule was established a priori as the null hypothesis rejection criterion to determine associations between jury verdicts outcomes and state's tort reform status. RESULTS: In this study, 39 cases were identified and met the study's inclusion criteria from the entire Westlaw Edge database. Among plaintiffs who disclosed age and/or gender, median age was 35.0 years with a female majority (67.6%). Cases involving TOS were noted to be steadily decreasing since the mid-1990s. The cases were unevenly spread across 18 states, with the highest number of cases (14, 35.9%) from California and the second highest (4, 10.3%) from Pennsylvania. A similar uneven distribution was seen among U.S. census regions, in which the West had the highest cases (39.5%). The study revealed that more cases were brought to trials in tort reform states (26, 68.4%) than in non-tort reform states (12, 31.6%). A total of 24 of 39 (61.5%) plaintiffs had one specific claim, which resulted in their economic and noneconomic damages. Negligent operation and treatment complication represented an overwhelming majority of claims brought by 38 of 39 plaintiffs (97.4%). Misdiagnosis and lack of informed consent were both brought nine times (23.1%) by the group. Intraoperative nerve injury (20 patients, 51.3%) was the most commonly reported complication. Excluding one case with a settlement of $965,000, 30 of 38 (78.9%) cases went to trials and received defense verdicts. Eight cases (20.5%) were found in favor of plaintiffs with a median payout of $725,581. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlighted higher than average payouts to plaintiffs and risk factors that may result in malpractice lawsuits for surgeons undertaking TOS treatment. Future studies are needed to further clarify the relationships between tort reform and outcomes of malpractice cases involving TOS.

Malpractice Litigation for Compartment Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze litigation involving compartment syndrome to identify the causes and outcomes of such malpractice suits. A better understanding of such litigation may provide insight into areas where clinicians may make improvements in the delivery of care. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the Westlaw database from January 1, 2010 to January 1, 2018 were reviewed. The search term "compartment syndrome" was used to identify cases and extract data on the specialty of the physician defendant, the demographics of the plaintiff, the allegation, and the verdict. RESULTS: A total of 124 individual cases involving the diagnosis of compartment syndrome were identified. Medical centers or the hospital was included as a defendant in 51.6% of cases. The most frequent physician defendants were orthopedic surgeons (45.96%) and emergency medicine physicians (20.16%), followed by cardiothoracic/vascular surgeons (16.93%). Failure to diagnose was the most frequently cited claim (71.8% of cases). Most plaintiffs were men, with a mean age of 36.7 years, suffering injuries for an average of 5 years before their verdict. Traumatic compartment syndrome of the lower extremity causing nerve damage was the most common complication attributed to failure to diagnose, leading to litigation. Forty cases (32.25%) were found for the plaintiff or settled, with an average award of $1,553,993.66. CONCLUSIONS: Our study offers a brief overview of the most common defendants, plaintiffs, and injuries involved in legal disputes involving compartment syndrome. Orthopedic surgeons were most commonly named; however, vascular surgeons may also be involved in these cases because of the large number of cases with associated arterial involvement. A significant percentage of cases were plaintiff verdicts or settled cases. Failure to diagnosis or delay in treatment was the most common causes of malpractice litigation. Compartment syndrome is a clinical diagnosis and requires a high level of suspicion for a timely diagnosis. Lack of objective criteria for diagnosis increases the chances of medical errors and makes it an area vulnerable to litigation.

Malpractice Liability and Health Care Quality: A Review.

IMPORTANCE: The tort liability system is intended to serve 3 functions: compensate patients who sustain injury from negligence, provide corrective justice, and deter negligence. Deterrence, in theory, occurs because clinicians know that they may experience adverse consequences if they negligently injure patients. OBJECTIVE: To review empirical findings regarding the association between malpractice liability risk (ie, the extent to which clinicians face the threat of being sued and having to pay damages) and health care quality and safety. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: Systematic search of multiple databases for studies published between January 1, 1990, and November 25, 2019, examining the relationship between malpractice liability risk measures and health outcomes or structural and process indicators of health care quality. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Information on the exposure and outcome measures, results, and acknowledged limitations was extracted by 2 reviewers. Meta-analytic pooling was not possible due to variations in study designs; therefore, studies were summarized descriptively and assessed qualitatively. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Associations between malpractice risk measures and health care quality and safety outcomes. Exposure measures included physicians' malpractice insurance premiums, state tort reforms, frequency of paid claims, average claim payment, physicians' claims history, total malpractice payments, jury awards, the presence of an immunity from malpractice liability, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Medicare malpractice geographic practice cost index, and composite measures combining these measures. Outcome measures included patient mortality; hospital readmissions, avoidable admissions, and prolonged length of stay; receipt of cancer screening; Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality patient safety indicators and other measures of adverse events; measures of hospital and nursing home quality; and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: Thirty-seven studies were included; 28 examined hospital care only and 16 focused on obstetrical care. Among obstetrical care studies, 9 found no significant association between liability risk and outcomes (such as Apgar score and birth injuries) and 7 found limited evidence for an association. Among 20 studies of patient mortality in nonobstetrical care settings, 15 found no evidence of an association with liability risk and 5 found limited evidence. Among 7 studies that examined hospital readmissions and avoidable initial hospitalizations, none found evidence of an association between liability risk and outcomes. Among 12 studies of other measures (eg, patient safety indicators, process-of-care quality measures, patient satisfaction), 7 found no association between liability risk and these outcomes and 5 identified significant associations in some analyses. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: In this systematic review, most studies found no association between measures of malpractice liability risk and health care quality and outcomes. Although gaps in the evidence remain, the available findings suggested that greater tort liability, at least in its current form, was not associated with improved quality of care.

[Legal pitfalls in urology]. / Juristische "pitfalls" in der Urologie.

The juridification of medicine affects all disciplines, including urology. Therefore, in this discipline it can well happen that patients not only feel wrongly treated or complain that a treatment was not performed lege artis but also demand compensation or even bring criminal charges. From the patient point of view, the doctor is often more likely to blame for a complication that has arisen or for a hoped for but failed treatment success, than that it is accepted that a complication is typical for the intervention, which, despite the greatest medical care, unfortunately can become reality and is a fateful course. Insurance against claims for damages can be taken out. Not to be underestimated, however, is the personal burden of the accusations with which doctors are confronted by patients, relatives, expert witnesses and courts and against which one must defend oneself. This can mean additional work in addition to the normal medical workload. Therefore, the legal pitfalls in urology should be known.

Health care industry insights: A focus on the hospital and physician professional liability claims environment.

This article summarizes various findings published in the Aon/ASHRM Hospital and Physician Professional Liability Benchmark Analysis, October 2018.1 The report analyzes medical professional liability (PL) claims and exposure information from hospital systems and physician groups across the United States that self-insure their PL exposures. The purpose of this benchmark analysis is to provide health care risk managers and financial leaders with a data-supported tool to identify, measure, and better understand the risks that affect their organization.

A Contemporary Medicolegal Analysis of Outpatient Interventional Pain Procedures: 2009-2016.

BACKGROUND: Closed malpractice claim studies allow a review of rare but often severe complications, yielding useful insight into improving patient safety and decreasing practitioner liability. METHODS: This retrospective observational study of pain medicine malpractice claims utilizes the Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System database, which contains nearly 400,000 malpractice claims drawn from >400 academic and community medical centers. The Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System database was queried for January 1, 2009 through December 31, 2016, for cases with pain medicine as the primary service. Cases involving outpatient interventional pain management were identified. Controlled Risk Insurance Company-coded data fields and the narrative summaries were reviewed by the study authors. RESULTS: A total of 126 closed claims were identified. Forty-one claims resulted in payments to the plaintiffs, with a median payment of $175,000 (range, $2600-$2,950,000). Lumbar interlaminar epidural steroid injections were the most common procedures associated with claims (n = 34), followed by cervical interlaminar epidural steroid injections (n = 31) and trigger point injections (n = 13). The most common alleged injuring events were an improper performance of a procedure (n = 38); alleged nonsterile technique (n = 17); unintentional dural puncture (n = 13); needle misdirected to the spinal cord (n = 11); and needle misdirected to the lung (n = 10). The most common alleged outcomes were worsening pain (n = 26); spinal cord infarct (n = 16); epidural hematoma (n = 9); soft-tissue infection (n = 9); postdural puncture headache (n = 9); and pneumothorax (n = 9). According to the Controlled Risk Insurance Company proprietary contributing factor system, perceived deficits in technical skill were present in 83% of claims. CONCLUSIONS: Epidural steroid injections are among the most commonly performed interventional pain procedures and, while a familiar procedure to pain management practitioners, may result in significant neurological injury. Trigger point injections, while generally considered safe, may result in pneumothorax or injury to other deep structures. Ultimately, the efforts to minimize practitioner liability and patient harm, like the claims themselves, will be multifactorial. Best outcomes will likely come from continued robust training in procedural skills, attention paid to published best practice recommendations, documentation that includes an inclusive consent discussion, and thoughtful patient selection. Limitations for this study are that closed claim data do not cover all complications that occur and skew toward more severe complications. In addition, the data from Controlled Risk Insurance Company Comparative Benchmarking System cannot be independently verified.

Characterization of Medical Professional Liability Risks Associated With Transesophageal Echocardiography.

BACKGROUND: Medical claim data offer the possibility to improve patient care and mitigate liability. Although published analyses exist in cardiology, no information is available for transesophageal echocardiography (TEE). In this study, the authors reviewed medical claims involving TEE to identify potential risk management concerns so that these lessons could be used to improve the safety and quality of transesophageal echocardiographic practice. METHODS: The authors reviewed anonymized clinical and claims data from all closed claims from 2008 to 2013 for a single national physician liability insurer. RESULTS: There were no claims involving transthoracic echocardiography and eight involving TEE. Three claims involved esophageal perforation, a known risk of TEE. Two claims involved quadriplegia allegedly due to neck manipulation in the setting of a cervical spinal abscess that should have been suspected. Three claims involved the cardiologist's failure to diagnose endocarditis, with allegations that the cardiologist did not perform TEE in an appropriate time frame to avoid major morbidity and mortality from endocarditis. CONCLUSIONS: Liability claims associated with TEE involve failure to order and perform TEE in an appropriate clinical scenario and in a timely manner; failure to properly document medical decision making; failure to inform patients regarding risks of TEE; failure to properly monitor the patient before, during, and after TEE; and technical difficulties in performing the procedure. Cardiologists should recognize guideline-based indications when TEE is needed and be mindful of the complication rates of this procedure. When screening a patient for TEE, consider expert input that may reduce the risks of TEE (e.g., a spine specialist for a neck injury, a gastroenterologist for esophageal comorbidity). Informed consent and medical record documentation should be practiced as a vehicle to inform patients of these risks and chronicle decision-making processes.

Effect of Increasing Malpractice Insurance Cost and Subsequent Practice of Defensive Medicine on Out-of-Hospital Birth Rates in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Across the United States, the burden of malpractice litigation has influenced obstetricians and obstetric institutions to avoid high-risk patients, favor cesarean delivery, and decrease availability of trial of labor after cesarean. Recently, the United States has experienced an increase in out-of-hospital (OOH) births. OBJECTIVE: The main purpose of this article is to investigate the association between malpractice insurance premium (MIP) and OOH births in the United States from 2000 to 2014. STUDY DESIGN: We analyzed changes in OOH birth rates and MIP from 2000 to 2014 using birth data from the National Vital Statistics System and Medical Liability Monitor's annual survey, respectively. The change in OOH birth rates was then compared with the change in MIP. RESULTS: Between 2000 and 2014, there has been approximately 60% increase in MIP from national average of $40,949 to $65,210 (p < 0.05). OOH births increased 57% from 39,398 births to 59,674 births (p < 0.05). There was a significant positive correlation between increase in MIP and increase in OOH births (p < 0.05, R 2 = 0.14). CONCLUSION: MIP and OOH birth rates have a significantly associated increase from 2000 to 2014. Given that malpractice climate affects other aspects of obstetric practice, we cautiously propose that increasing MIP may be associated with an increase in OOH births.

Why Do Vascular Surgeons Get Sued? Analysis of Claims and Outcomes in Malpractice Litigation.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the study was to analyze causes and outcomes of malpractice claims against vascular surgeons in the United States. METHODS: Cases entered into the Westlaw database from January 1, 1999 to December 31, 2014 were reviewed. Search terms "vascular" and "surgeon" were used. Data were compiled on the allegation, subject matter, and outcome of each case. Additional data including demographics of the defendant were obtained from the U.S. News Health reports on practicing physicians. RESULTS: Of a total of 785 cases identified from the Westlaw database using the search terms "vascular" and "surgeon", 485 (61.8%) were identified where a vascular surgeon was the defendant or expert witness. Of these, 135 (27.8%) had a vascular surgeon identified as a defendant. Among these 135 cases, 88 (65.2%) were found for the defendant with 31 (23%) and 15 (11.1%) being found for the plaintiff or settled, respectively. Of the 31 cases found for the plaintiff, the median award was $750,000 and mean award was $1,830,000. Mean time from incident to verdict was 4.8 years. The most common procedures which led to litigation were open or endovascular peripheral revascularization (PR) (14.8%), carotid interventions (CIs) (11.85%), aortic interventions (AI) (11.1%), vascular trauma (9.63%), dialysis access (8.15%), and venous surgery (5.93%). The most common allegation was "failure to diagnose and treat" (48.9%), followed by complication of open surgery (31.85%) and negligent procedure (25.19%). The most common injuries reported were death (31.85%), major amputation (23.7%), neurovascular injury (14.8%), and bleeding (5.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of vascular surgery malpractice litigation in the Westlaw database revealed details regarding the subject matter and outcomes of these cases. Through this closed claims analysis, the most common procedures leading to litigation were found to be PR, CI, and AI and not thoracic outlet syndrome procedures as commonly believed. Furthermore, the most common allegations were a "failure to diagnose and treat" and "open surgical complication". Analysis of the salient features and outcomes in these cases can provide a framework for heightened awareness of issues which lead to malpractice claims and can ultimately improve patient care and safety.

Inferior Vena Cava Filter Malpractice Litigation: Damned if You Do, Damned if You Don't.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyze malpractice litigation trends and to better understand the causes and outcomes of suits involving inferior vena cava filters (IVCF) to prevent future litigation and improve physician education. METHODS: Jury verdict reviews from the Westlaw database from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2015, were reviewed. The search term "inferior vena cava filter" was used to compile data on the demographics of the defendant, plaintiff, allegation, complication, and verdict. RESULTS: A total of 156 cases were identified. Duplicates and cases in which the IVCF was incidentally included were excluded from the analysis. Forty-nine cases involving either failure to place or a complication of IVCF placement were identified. Throughout the last 15 years, there has been increased number of jury verdicts toward IVCF. The most frequent defendants were internal medicine physicians (38%), vascular surgeons (19%), and cardiothoracic surgeons (12%). The most frequent claims were denied treatment or delay in treatment (in 35% of cases), negligent surgery (in 24% of cases), and failure to diagnose and treat complications (in 24% of cases). Of these, the most frequent specific claims were failure to place IVC filter (41%), implantation failure such as misplacement and/or misaligned implant (24%), erosion of IVC/retroperitoneal bleed (6%), and discontinuation of anticoagulation prematurely (6%). Seventeen cases (35%) were found for the plaintiff, with median awards worth of $1,092,500. In the 21 cases where pulmonary embolism (PE) was involved (43% of cases), 19 were fatal (90%). Of the fatal PE cases, 8 cases ended with verdicts in favor of the plaintiff (42%). Both nonfatal PE cases were won by the defense. CONCLUSIONS: IVCF placement with subsequent PE and death results in verdicts that favor the plaintiffs. This study emphasizes that adequate and transparent communication regarding preoperative planning, decision for IVCF placement, and informed consent may reduce the frequency of litigation. Public awareness of complications related to the placement of IVCF is increasing largely and spurned by aggressive advertising and marketing by plaintiff attorneys. Conditions for which IVCF placement is contemplated carry significant risk of malpractice litigation.

Defensive medicine among neurosurgeons in the Netherlands: a national survey.

OBJECTIVE: In defensive medicine, practice is motivated by legal rather than medical reasons. Previous studies have analyzed the correlation between perceived medico-legal risk and defensive behavior among neurosurgeons in the United States, Canada, and South Africa, but not yet in Europe. The aim of this study is to explore perceived liability burdens and self-reported defensive behaviors among neurosurgeons in the Netherlands and compare their practices with their non-European counterparts. METHODS: A survey was sent to 136 neurosurgeons. The survey included questions from several domains: surgeon characteristics, patient demographics, type of practice, surgeon liability profile, policy coverage, defensive practices, and perception of the liability environment. Survey responses were analyzed and summarized. RESULTS: Forty-five neurosurgeons filled out the questionnaire (response rate of 33.1%). Almost half (n = 20) reported paying less than 5% of their income to annual malpractice premiums. Nearly all respondents view their insurance premiums as a minor or no burden (n = 42) and are confident that in their coverage is sufficient (n = 41). Most neurosurgeons (n = 38) do not see patients as "potential lawsuits". CONCLUSIONS: Relative to their American peers, Dutch neurosurgeons view their insurance premiums as less burdensome, their patients as a smaller legal threat, and their practice as less risky in general. They are sued less often and engage in fewer defensive behaviors than their non-European counterparts. The medico-legal climate in the Netherlands may contribute to this difference.