Search

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., (Copyright © 2024 by the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery, Inc. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Breast imaging accounts for a large proportion of medico-legal cases involving radiologists in several countries and may be a disincentive to breast imaging. As this has not been well studied in Canada, we evaluated the key medico-legal issues of breast imaging in Canada and their implications for health care providers and patient safety. Methods: In collaboration with Canadian Medical Protective Association (CMPA), we obtained information from the medico-legal repository, including civil-legal, medical regulatory authority (College) and hospital complaints occurring between 2002-2021. Canadian Classification of Health Interventions (CCI) codes were used for breast imaging and biopsy. Trend analysis was done comparing cases involving breast imaging/biopsy to all cases where a radiologist was named. Results: Radiologists were named in 3108 medico-legal cases, 188 (6%, 188/3108) of which were CCI coded for breast imaging or biopsy. Factors related to radiologists were most frequent (64%, 120/188), followed by team (23.4%, 44/188) and system (6.9%, 13/188). Equal representation of male and female radiologists was found (IRR = 1.22; 95% CI: .89, 1.56). In a 10-year test window from 2006 - 2015 we identified an increasing trend for all cases involving radiologists ( P = 0,0128) but a decreasing trend for cases coded with breast imaging or biopsy ( P = 0,0099). Conclusions: A significant decrease in cases involving breast imaging were found from 2006-2015, accounting for 6% of the medico-legal cases. The lower risk of breast imaging medico-legal issues may encourage more radiologists in breast imaging., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

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.

In Brady v Southend University Hospital NHS Trust, the High Court was asked to consider the applicability of Bolam and Bolitho principles in a so-called 'pure diagnosis' claim. The claimant suffered from the long-term effects of an undiagnosed bacterial infection after presenting at the defendant hospital with acute appendicitis. It was argued by claimant's counsel that where the primary allegation of fault concerns diagnosis, no issues of acceptable practice arise and therefore Bolam and Bolitho do not apply. Rejecting this, the High Court confirmed the applicability of Bolam and Bolitho and found that the defendant hospital had not been negligent. Initially, this result may signal a continued deference towards those in the medical profession, however, it is suggested that an alternative reading evidences a case which lays the groundwork for reconsidering the doctor-patient relationship in the context of treatment and diagnosis actions., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press; All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The purpose of this study is to identify the extent of diagnostic error lawsuits related to point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) in internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care, of which little is known., Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of the Westlaw legal database for indexed state and federal lawsuits involving the diagnostic use of POCUS in internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care. Retrieved cases were reviewed independently by three physicians to identify cases relevant to our study objective. A lawyer secondarily reviewed any cases with discrepancies between the three reviewers., Results: Our search criteria returned 131 total cases. Ultrasound was mentioned in relation to the lawsuit claim in 70 of the cases returned. In these cases, the majority were formal ultrasounds performed and reviewed by the radiology department, echocardiography studies performed by cardiologists or obstetrical ultrasounds. There were no cases of internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine or critical care physicians being subjected to adverse legal action for their diagnostic use of POCUS., Conclusion: Our results suggest that concerns regarding the potential for lawsuits related to POCUS in the fields of internal medicine, paediatrics, family medicine and critical care are not substantiated by indexed state and federal filed lawsuits., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2021. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

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., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The Covid-19 pandemic caused a marked increase in admissions to intensive care units. The critically ill patients' condition from the infection resulted in their deaths. The healthcare facilities have got into trouble because of the pandemic. In fact, they had to create additional beds in a very short time and to protect health workers with personal protective equipment. Healthcare professionals fear that there will be an increase in complaints and medico-legal malpractice claims and hence they have urged politicians to discuss this. The Italian Parliament recently debated the topic of medical liability and passed the Decree-Law no. 18 of 17 March 2020 (DL - so called Cura Italia) by which they want to extend the concept of "gross negligence" to healthcare facilities. Several Extended Care Units have suffered from outbreaks of Covid-19, so the Prosecutor's Office of several cities initiated investigations against them. This situation has reached Sicily, where the Prosecutor's Office of Palermo has opened an inquiry against an Extended Care Unit. Simultaneously, the Covid-19 pandemic may change patients' attitudes towards healthcare professionals, who are risking their lives daily. So the Italian medico-legal community is debating these questions, with one last pending question remaining: is the number of medico-legal claims likely to increase or trend down?

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

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., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Despite the rarity of necrotizing fasciitis (NF), it is a relatively common cause of death in many lawsuits. Families seek financial compensation or legal charges against those they believe to be involved in the death, usually physicians who did not identify the infection soon enough. This paper explores six cases in forensic pathology practice where NF posed a unique medico-legal dilemma., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.)

In 2018, the American Academy of Neurology, the American Congress of Rehabilitation Medicine, and the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research published a systematic evidence-based review and an associated practice guideline for improved assessment, treatment, and rehabilitation of patients with disorders of consciousness. Patients with disorders of consciousness include individuals in the vegetative and minimally conscious states, as well as others with covert consciousness and cognitive motor dissociation. These landmark publications (concurrently published in Neurology and Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation) supplant the 1994 New England Journal of Medicine Multi-Society Task Force report on the vegetative state and the 2002 criteria establishing minimally conscious states. The guideline re-designates the permanent vegetative state as chronic. In our article, we consider the legal and ethical implications of the practice guideline for clinical practice and explain the vulnerability of these patients who suffer from high rates of misdiagnosis, inadequate medical surveillance, undertreatment of pain, inadequate rehabilitation, and segregation in chronic care. We argue that these deficiencies in medical care are inconsistent with our growing appreciation of the dynamic nature of these brain states and an emerging standard of care as articulated by the national guideline. These deficiencies also violate domestic and international disability law. To substantiate this latter claim, we apply disability law to this population, focusing on key Americans with Disabilities Act mandates, the relevance of the 1999 Supreme Court, Olmstead v. L.C., and the utility of Olmstead enforcement actions to integrate the care of these individuals into the medical mainstream., (Copyright © 2020 Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

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., (Copyright © 2019 American College of Radiology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diagnostic errors remain understudied in neonatology. The limited available evidence, however, suggests that diagnostic errors in the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) result in significant and long-term consequences. In this narrative review, we discuss how the concept of diagnostic errors framed as missed opportunities can be applied to the non-linear nature of diagnosis in a critical care environment such as the NICU. We then explore how the etiology of an error in diagnosis can be related to both individual cognitive factors as well as organizational and systemic factors - all of which often contribute to the error. This multifactorial causation has limited the development of methodology to measure diagnostic errors as well as strategies to mitigate and prevent their adverse effects. We recommend research focused on the frequency and etiology of diagnostic error in the NICU as well as potential mitigation strategies to advance this important field in neonatal intensive care., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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.

Background: In the ambulatory setting, missed cancer diagnoses are leading contributors to patient harm and malpractice risk; however, there are limited data on the malpractice case characteristics for these cases., Objective: The aim of this study was to examine key features and factors identified in missed cancer diagnosis malpractice claims filed related to primary care and evaluate predictors of clinical and claim outcomes., Methods: We analyzed 2155 diagnostic error closed malpractice claims in outpatient general medicine. We created multivariate models to determine factors that predicted case outcomes., Results: Missed cancer diagnoses represented 980 (46%) cases of primary care diagnostic errors, most commonly from lung, colorectal, prostate, or breast cancer. The majority (76%) involved errors in clinical judgment, such as a failure or delay in ordering a diagnostic test (51%) or failure or delay in obtaining a consult or referral (37%). These factors were independently associated with higher-severity patient harm. The majority of these errors were of high severity (85%)., Conclusions: Malpractice claims involving missed diagnoses of cancer in primary care most often involve routine screening examinations or delays in testing or referral. Our findings suggest that more reliable closed-loop systems for diagnostic testing and referrals are crucial for preventing diagnostic errors in the ambulatory setting., (© 2019 American Society for Healthcare Risk Management of the American Hospital Association.)

Study Objective: Shared decisionmaking has been promoted as a method to increase the patient-centeredness of medical decisionmaking and decrease low-yield testing, but little is known about its medicolegal ramifications in the setting of an adverse outcome. We seek to determine whether the use of shared decisionmaking changes perceptions of fault and liability in the case of an adverse outcome., Methods: This was a randomized controlled simulation experiment conducted by survey, using clinical vignettes featuring no shared decisionmaking, brief shared decisionmaking, or thorough shared decisionmaking. Participants were adult US citizens recruited through an online crowd-sourcing platform. Participants were randomized to vignettes portraying 1 of 3 levels of shared decisionmaking. All other information given was identical, including the final clinical decision and the adverse outcome. The primary outcome was reported likelihood of pursuing legal action. Secondary outcomes included perceptions of fault, quality of care, and trust in physician., Results: We recruited 804 participants. Participants exposed to shared decisionmaking (brief and thorough) were 80% less likely to report a plan to contact a lawyer than those not exposed to shared decisionmaking (12% and 11% versus 41%; odds ratio 0.2; 95% confidence interval 0.12 to 0.31). Participants exposed to either level of shared decisionmaking reported higher trust, rated their physicians more highly, and were less likely to fault their physicians for the adverse outcome compared with those exposed to the no shared decisionmaking vignette., Conclusion: In the setting of an adverse outcome from a missed diagnosis, use of shared decisionmaking may affect patients' perceptions of fault and liability., (Copyright © 2018 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

It was an overwhelming, 12-0 verdict - a jury's unanimous rejection of a negligence case against a Laredo physician. Then, a judge took that decision away and ordered a new trial - not because of jury misconduct, or any procedural stumble that usually negates a court decision. It was taken away, essentially, because the judge said so.

Recently, there have been cases in which doctors were criminally convicted for misdiagnosing a patient with constipation who then died of diaphragmatic hernia. The criminal punishment of doctors could create a side effect of reduced medical practitioners. This study analyzed the impact of medical disputes and deduced a plan to create a stable composition of the medical environment. An online survey was conducted with 79,022 doctors who are members of the Korea Medical Association. A total of 3109 responses were obtained, and the analysis used the questionnaire system of the Doctor's News online survey system. The results demonstrated that doctors have become more psychologically inclined to prescribe overtreatments, avoidance treatments, and defensive treatments. Also, it was found that specialized agencies for medical appraisals were necessary. In order to resolve medical disputes objectively, it is necessary to improve credibility by securing the expertise of the Korea Medical Dispute Mediation and Arbitration Agency. In addition, there is a need for specialized agencies to undertake the medical appraisals and training of medical staff to build up their understanding of medical disputes. Thus, medical disputes can be minimized, and the fairness of medical dispute results can be strengthened.

English law mandates a duty of candour (DOC) for all healthcare providers. They must be open and honest when something goes wrong with care causing harm. Providers must apologize to those affected and investigate what happened. Screening is not 100% accurate and false positive and false negative results are inevitable. Guidance on DOC assists providers to judge when something has gone wrong in screening and the DOC legislation applies. DOC guidance helps distinguish such incidents from harms that are an expected and inevitable consequence of the imperfections of screening tests. For breast cancer screening the classification of interval cancers has been updated to take account of DOC. This guidance on DOC and classification of prior films of those presenting with interval cancers has relevance to other areas of diagnostic imaging. Review of prior examinations after a significant diagnosis has been made may reveal a previously overlooked abnormality.

Objective: Introduction: The peculiarities of the disadvantages of providing medical care in Ukraine are not well-known abroad. The aim: To study the peculiarities of court decisions in cases of unfavorable consequences of medical activity., Patients and Methods: Materials and methods: The article analyzes the official data of the General Prosecutor's Office of Ukraine and the website of court decisions regarding criminal cases against medical practitioners., Results: Review: Approximately 600 cases of alleged medical malpractice cases are registered annually in Ukraine. Only less than one percent of them are brought to the court. The guilt of medical practitioners was proven in majority (80,8%) of court decisions. Acquittals of defendants were pronounced in 5,9% of court verdicts. Obstetrics and gynecology, surgery, internal medicine and anesthesiology are in the top of high-risk medical specialties., Conclusion: Conclusions: Majority of medical malpractice litigations are sued in Ukraine baselessly. In cases of medical negligence majority of defendants are acquitted as usual.

Introduction: Antebrachial fractures in children (AFC) are common and account for one third of all paediatric fractures. The Danish Patient Compensation Association (PCA) receives complaints from patients who believe that they have sustained injuries due to potential malpractice or unfortunate circumstances. Case files on AFC from the PCA were assessed to identify causality and factors contributing to complaints and potential malpractice., Methods: A closed-claim analysis was performed in 138 cases with the diagnosis codes DS52.2 through DS52.6., Results: The most frequent complaints were fracture re-displacement (n = 49) and dissatisfaction with an otherwise correctly treated injury (n = 30). Doctor's delay due to missed primary diagnosis was found to be a median of 63 days. Complaints about surgery were almost equally distributed between K-wire and intramedullary nails, and unequally distributed for conservative treatment between splinting (n = 29) and casting (n = 10). Two thirds of the in-juries were unacknowledged and evaluated as light injuries or no injury. One third of the complaints were acknowledged; the majority of which were both-bone fractures., Conclusions: Two thirds of all complaints were due to normal fracture sequelae; thus, patient anticipation should be accommodated by thorough patient information. Mid-diaphyseal fractures of the forearm are overrepresented among the acknowledged complaints. Casting seems to be preferred to splinting. However, more awareness of these fractures using routinely performed radiographs at the first visit to the emergency room and at follow-up could avoid complaints as well as doctor's delay., Funding: none. 
TRIAL REGISTRATION: not relevant., (Articles published in the DMJ are “open access”. This means that the articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits any non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are credited.)

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., (© 2017 ARS-AAOA, LLC.)

The failure to diagnose acute appendicitis (AA) is the third most common medical malpractice allegation related to gastrointestinal disease. There is a paucity of detailed data on this topic; however, publications by Whang et al and by Berlin and Berlin, which analyzed all types of malpractice suits against radiologists, have shown that the incidence of litigation has increased over time in the United States. This is likely true for cases of AA as well. The misinterpretation of cross-sectional imaging in patients with suspected appendicitis may be caused by suboptimal technique, errors of omission, i.e, missing key findings, failure to review a portion of the examination, and satisfaction of search error. This article summarizes the published legal, clinical, and imaging literature regarding litigation in cases of missed AA, and reviews optimized multidetector computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging protocols for the diagnosis of AA, with examples shown of challenging cases., (Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Medical malpractice plaintiff firms play a central role in the prosecution of malpractice claims. There have been limited studies on the online advertising practices of plaintiff medical malpractice firms. The Martindale-Hubbell directory was used to identify all plaintiff medical malpractice firms in Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Each firm's website was individually mined for relevant data. Thirty-one unique medical malpractice law firms were identified. Seventy-seven percent of law firms advertised awards with the Martindale-Hubbell AV rating, AVVO, and Super Lawyer being the three most common. The second most common method of advertising was accomplished through descriptions of successful verdicts and settlements (61%). A total of 408 verdicts, settlements, and arbitrations collectively representing $1.4 billion dollars were advertised by all law firms. Median awarded values for verdicts was advertised as $4.5 million, while the median awarded values for settlements was $1.25 million. Defendants most commonly practiced obstetrics (18%), followed by primary care (14%). Law firms report treatment and diagnosis delay as the most common successful claim (50%), followed much further by misdiagnosis (8%), and communication error (4%). Our sample correlates with larger claims-based studies surrounding the most commonly sued specialties, however, median reported settlement and verdict values were significantly higher in our cohort. Considerations should be made to provide advertising guidelines for medical malpractice plaintiff firms., (Copyright © 2017 by the National Legal Center for the Medically Dependent and Disabled, Inc.)

Competing Interests: Disclosure The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., (Published by Elsevier Inc.)

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., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine. All rights reserved.)

Thyroid surgery has the potential for significant life-changing postoperative complications. Since 1995, the NHS Litigation Authority has handled litigation claims in England. This article reviews all thyroid surgery litigation claims between 1995 and 2012 and looks at potential strategies to minimize future claims.

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.

Diagnostic errors in 49 patients with appendicitis handled by the Swedish Health and Social Care Inspectorate were analyzed. Diagnostic errors were more common in young or old patients, and among patients with atypical symptoms. Adjunct diagnostic tools, such as computerized tomography and/or ultrasound examination, also have limitations as regards diagnostic precision, and should therefore not be seen as golden standard. Increased individual knowledge, and not systems factors or safety culture, appears to be a suitable remedy against diagnostic errors.

Diagnostic errors in primary care and in the emergency departments Between 40 and 50 percent (2015) of issues dealt with by the supervisory authorities (lex Maria-issues) from primary care and from acute/emergency departments deal with diagnostic errors. Here, we present underlying issues such as systemic issues, patient related issues and doctor related issues that are more specific in primary care and acute/emergency departments. Finally, we briefly present possible actions to reduce the risk of diagnostic errors.

Objective: To examine 3 legal cases in which physicians prescribed methotrexate to women with a viable intrauterine pregnancy, presumed to be ectopic, resulting in adverse fetal outcomes., Study Design: We conducted an electronic literature search for legal cases using the keywords “methotrexate” and “pregnancy” in the LexisNexis legal research engine as well as an Internet-wide search using the additional keyword “verdict.” We manually searched the resultant list of identified cases and categorized the studies identified in the search by verdict, award amount, and outcome of the embryo exposed to methotrexate., Results: The monetary awards are typically greater when the embryo exposed to methotrexate lives and requires continuous medical and custodial care as compared to when the fetus dies in utero or shortly after birth., Conclusion: Physicians who, with all good intentions, prescribe methotrexate to women with a viable pregnancy, presumed to be ectopic, could find them-selves liable for an adverse fetal outcome. For the benefit of patients, their unborn offspring, and the liability exposure of the physician, it is important to be very cautious when prescribing methotrexate.