[Medical negligence in cardiology: enter the lawyers and the experts and, then, the judge]. / Colpa medica in cardiologia: entrano gli avvocati e gli esperti e, poi, il giudice.

Legal proceedings for medical negligence usually origin from painful events and their management is often complex, also at an emotional level, both for the families involved and for the physicians assumed to carry responsibility. Many of these aspects are unfamiliar and unclear to the doctors themselves who then need to interact, together with their lawyers, with judges who must take serious decisions on technical facts not easy to be fully comprehended by non-medical persons.On the basis of our different and highly specific personal experience, we have tried to clarify some of the fundamental issues concerning medico-legal cases. Accordingly, we have discussed the different types of guilt, made the distinction between civil and penal cases, with special focus on one issue which is particularly critical, namely that of the importance of guidelines. We have presented some examples of clinical cases and highlighted some glaring differences existing in the management of medico-legal cases between Italy and the United States. Despite obvious complexities, these differences might suggest some approaches toward the simplification of these proceedings and the shortening of the time involved to reach a conclusion.

In Vitro Fertilization, State Wrongful Death Statutes and State Fetal Homicide Statutes: The Reaction to LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine.

The Alabama Supreme Court recently held, in LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, that the parents of human embryos that were negligently destroyed at a fertility clinic could bring an action for damages under the State's wrongful death statute. Although the Alabama legislature promptly enacted a law essentially overturning the state supreme court's decision, concerns have been raised that the court's decision might influence courts in other States to interpret their wrongful death statutes, or possibly even their fetal homicide statutes, to apply in similar circumstances, thereby threatening the availability of in vitro fertilization (IVF) technology. This article addresses those concerns.With respect to wrongful death statutes, only fourteen States (excluding Alabama) have interpreted their statutes to apply to unborn children without regard to their stage of gestation or development. The majority of States impose a gestational requirement (typically, viability) which would preclude their application to the destruction of human embryos. Even with respect to the minority of States that impose no limitation on the cause of action, those statutes, either by their express language or by fair interpretation, would not apply to unimplanted human embryos.With respect to the fetal homicide statutes in thirty-one States that do not have any gestational or developmental limitation, the statutes in twenty-six of those States apply only to acts causing the death of an unborn child in utero. As to the statutes in the other five States, the structure of the statute, considered in light of the applicable case law, strongly suggests that there would be no liability for causing the death of an unborn child before implantation. In sum, the Alabama Supreme Court's decision in LePage is not likely to be followed as a precedent in interpreting either the wrongful death statutes or the fetal homicide statutes of any other State.

Case Management Consultant to Attorneys in Litigated Cases.

ABSTRACT: Rehabilitation nurses possess knowledge and skills that are ideally suited to a variety of roles. This article informs rehabilitation nurses about opportunities to work in private case management for medical-legal cases. A brief overview of the process of litigation gives nurses the context in which case management interventions are needed. Case examples illustrate the services that nurses provide to attorneys and their clients that help obtain needed care and aid in progressing litigation to resolution.

Exploring the dynamics of physician-patient relationships: Factors affecting patient satisfaction and complaints.

This review identifes the factors influencing the relationship between physicians and patients that can lead to patients' dissatisfaction and medical complaints. Utilizing a systemic approach 92 studies were retrieved which included quantitative, qualitative, and mixed method studies. Through a thematic analysis of the literature, we identified three interrelated main themes that can influence the relationship between physicians and patients, patients' satisfaction, and the decision to file a medico-legal complaint. The main themes include patient and physician characteristics; the interpersonal relationship between physicians and patients; and the health care system and policies, with relevant subthemes. These themes are demonstrated in a descriptive model. The review suggests areas of focus for physicians who may wish to increase their awareness around the potential sources of relational problems with their patients. Identifying these issues may assist in improvements in the therapeutic relationship with patients, can reduce their medico-legal risk, and enhance the quality of their clinical practice. The findings can also be utilized to support andragogical principles for medical learners. The article can serve as a structured framework to identify potential problems and gaps to design and test effective interventions to mitigate these potential relational problems between physician-patient.

A review on legal issues of medical robots.

This paper examines the legal challenges associated with medical robots, including their legal status, liability in cases of malpractice, and concerns over patient data privacy and security. And this paper scrutinizes China's nuanced response to these dilemmas. An analysis of Chinese judicial practices and legislative actions reveals that current denial of legal personality to AI at this stage is commendable. To effectively control the financial risks associated with medical robots, there is an urgent need for clear guidelines on responsibility allocation for medical accidents involving medical robots, the implementation of strict data protection laws, and the strengthening of industry standards and regulations.

Doctors, FIRs, and Arrest in Alleged Medical Negligence Cases in India: Demystifying the Legal Tenability.

The relationship between a doctor and a patient is a contract, retaining the essential elements of the tort. Modern medical practice has evolved alongside the court of law to regulate the conduct of doctors and hospitals to reduce litigations of medical negligence. Lately, Indian patients have become more aware of their rights and the Consumer Protection Act. This awareness encourages patients to litigate and seek the help of redressal forums to mitigate their loss/injury in cases of medical negligence. Though there is a rise in complaints of medical negligence filed against doctors and hospitals, these allegations are often frivolous. The specter of litigation constantly looms over medical practitioners, who frequently struggle to defend themselves in a court of law, causing undue anxiety and anguish. Thus, a doctor can be considered the second victim in a medical negligence case. Lack of awareness regarding their legal rights and pertinent laws coupled with contradictory actions of the law enforcement agencies while handling alleged medical negligence cases worsens a doctor's trepidation. Hence, this article attempts to raise awareness among medical professionals, which will thereby allay undue fear while facing an allegation.

Risk management and empirical study of the doctor-patient relationship: based on 1790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes in China.

BACKGROUND: Compensation for medical damage liability disputes (CMDLD) seriously hinders the healthy development of hospitals and undermines the harmony of the doctor-patient relationships (DPR). Risk management in the DPR has become an urgent issue of the day. The study aims to provide a comprehensive description of CMDLD in China and explore its influencing factors, and make corresponding recommendations for the management of risks in the DPR. METHODS: This study extracted data from the China Judgment Online - the official judicial search website with the most comprehensive coverage. Statistical analysis of 1,790 litigation cases of medical damage liability disputes (COMDLD) available from 2015 to 2021. RESULTS: COMDLD generally tended to increase with the year and was unevenly distributed by regions; the compensation rate was 52.46%, the median compensation was 134,900 yuan and the maximum was 2,234,666 yuan; the results of the single factor analysis showed that there were statistically significant differences between the compensation for different years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures (P < 0.05); the correlation analysis showed that types of hospitals were significantly negatively associated with regions (R=-0.082, P < 0.05); trial procedures were significantly negatively correlated with years (R=-0.484, P < 0.001); compensat- ion was significantly positively correlated with years, regions, and treatment attributes (R = 0.098-0.294, P < 0.001) and negatively correlated with trial procedures (R=-0.090, P < 0.01); regression analysis showed that years, treatment attributes, and regions were the main factors affecting the CMDLD (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Years, regions, treatment attributes, and trial procedures affect the outcome of CMDLD. This paper further puts forward relevant suggestions and countermeasures for the governance of doctor-patient risks based on the empirical results. Including rational allocation of medical resources to narrow the differences between regions; promoting the expansion and sinking of high-quality resources to improve the level of medical services in hospitals at all levels; and developing a third-party negotiation mechanism for medical disputes to reduce the cost of medical litigation.

The Impact of the Linear No-threshold Hypothesis on Litigation.

ABSTRACT: As the basis of radiation safety practice and regulations worldwide, the linear no-threshold (LNT) hypothesis exerts enormous influence throughout society. This includes our judicial system, where frivolous lawsuits are filed alleging radiation-induced health effects caused by negligent companies who subject unwitting victims to enormous financial and physical harm. Typically, despite the lack of any supporting scientific basis, these cases result in enormous costs to organizations, insurance companies, and consumers.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Litigation in Organ Transplantation for Allegations of Insufficient Policy Coverage, Discrimination and Malpractice.

Introduction: Transplantation is a field with unique medical and administrative challenges that involve an equally diverse array of stakeholders. Expectantly, the litigation stemming from this field should be similarly nuanced. There is a paucity of comprehensive reviews characterizing this medicolegal landscape. Design: The Caselaw Access Project Database was used to collect official court briefs of 2053 lawsuits related to kidney, liver, heart, lung, and pancreas transplantation. A thematic analysis was undertaken to characterize grounds for litigation, defendant type, and outcomes. Cases were grouped into policy, discrimination, poor or unsuccessful outcome, or other categories. Results: One hundred sixty-four court cases were included for analysis. Cases involving disputes over policy coverage were the most common across all organ types (N = 55, 33.5%). This was followed by poor outcomes (N = 51, 31.1%), allegations of discrimination against prison systems and employers (N = 37, 22.6%) and other (N = 21, 12.8%). Defendants involved in discrimination trials won with the greatest frequency (N = 29, 90.62%). Defendants implicated in policy suits won 65.3% (N = 32), poor outcomes 62.2% (N = 28), and other 70% (N = 14). Of the 51 cases involving poor outcomes, plaintiffs indicated lack of informed consent in 23 (45.1%). Conclusion: Reconsidering the informed consent process may be a viable means of mitigating future legal action. Most discrimination suits favoring defendants suggested previous concerns of structural injustices in transplantation may not be founded. The prevalence of policy-related cases could be an indication of financial burden on patients. Future work and advocacy will need to substantiate these concerns and address change where legal recourse falls short.

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.