Malpractice risk associated with surgical procedures
- Marsha Ryan, MD, JD, FACS
Marsha Ryan, MD, JD, FACS
- Adjunct Professor, School of Law
- Southern Illinois University
- Michele Mekel, JD, MHA, MBA
Michele Mekel, JD, MHA, MBA
- Adjunct Professor of Law
Medical malpractice actions are tort claims in which patients who feel that they received inadequate medical care can sue. The patient becomes the plaintiff, and the physician becomes the defendant.
Obstetricians/gynecologists and surgeons are most likely to be sued among all physicians. In one study, 85 percent of obstetricians/gynecologists, 83 percent of general surgeons, and 79 percent of orthopedists reported having been sued . In a given year, 15 percent of general surgeons, 19 percent of thoracic-cardiovascular surgeons, and 19 percent of neurosurgeons are named in malpractice suits . The majority of those suits, approximately 65 percent, are eventually dropped or dismissed, and 25 percent of cases are settled . Although only 10 percent of cases go to trial, the monetary, emotional, professional, and social tolls of malpractice actions are costly to the defendant surgeon.
Despite the frequency of suits and the maxim that lawsuits are merely a cost of doing business, it is nearly impossible to separate the surgeon's view of himself and his professional competence from the "assault" inherent in the legal process. The world of plaintiffs (who had just recently been patients), lawyers, insurance carriers, expert witnesses, legal doctrines, state and federal laws, and judicial application of law to the facts of the case can be intimidating.
Knowledge of a system otherwise so foreign to the surgeon may better prepare him or her to tolerate the idiosyncrasies of that system and, with heightened vigilance, may perhaps prevent entanglement in a lawsuit ab initio.
This topic will discuss the basic principles of medical malpractice law to provide guidance to surgeons who may be sued. Specific issues related to informed consent are discussed separately. (See "Informed procedural consent".)
Subscribers log in hereLiterature review current through: Nov 2017. | This topic last updated: May 30, 2017.References
- http://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/public/malpractice-report-2015#page=3 (Accessed on May 10, 2017).
- Jena AB, Seabury S, Lakdawalla D, Chandra A. Malpractice risk according to physician specialty. N Engl J Med 2011; 365:629.
- http://www.amednews.com/article/20100816/profession/308169946/2/#cx (Accessed on April 10, 2017).
- Coltoff P, Kennel JR, Pellegrino C. Nature, 70 C.J.S. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS § 134 (Mar. 2017 Supp.).
- Pollin D. Requisites of Expert Witness, 33 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 2D 179 § 5 (Feb. 2017 Update).
- Pollin D. The "Locality Rule," 33 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 2D 179 § 6 (Feb. 2017 Update).
- Duff Jr J. Under Rule Requiring Familiarity with Standard of Care in Defendant's Locality or Similar Locality—Witnesses Held Competent, 37 A.L.R. 3D 420 § 7[a] (1971 & Cum. Supp.).
- Duff Jr J. Under Rule Requiring Familiarity with Standard of Care in Defendant's Locality or Similar Locality—Witnesses Held Incompetent, 37 A.L.R. 3D 420 § 7[b] (1971 & Cum. Supp.).
- Pollin D. Particular Limitations on Medical Expert Testimony – The "Same School Rule," 33 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 2D 179 § 7 (Feb. 2017 Update).
- Pollin D. "Same Specialty Rule," 33 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 2D 179 § 8 (Feb. 2017 Update).
- http://www.nolo.com/dictionary/res-ipsa-loquitur-term.html (Accessed on March 25, 2017).
- Lindal BA. Proof in Malpractice Cases—Res Ipsa Loquitur—Conditional Res Ipsa Loquitur—Application to Medical Malpractice Cases, 2 MODERN TORT LAW: LIABILITY AND LITIGATION § 25:92 (2D ED.) (June 2016 Update).
- Ybarra v. Spangard, 25 Cal. 2d 486, 494 (1944).
- Epstein DM. Medical Malpractice: Physician's Admission of Negligence as Establishing Standard of Care and Breach of That Standard, 42 A.L.R. 5th 1 (1996 & Cum. Supp.).
- Henry HH. Leaving Foreign Substance in Patient's Body, 81 A.L.R. 2d 597 § 6 (1962 & Cum. Supp.).
- Rigelhaupt Jr JL. What Constitutes Physician-patient Relationship for Malpractice Purposes, 17 A.L.R. 4th 132 § 2 (1982 & Cum. Supp.).
- https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMTALA/index.html (Accessed on April 10, 2017).
- Holder AR. Physician Abandonment of Patient, 3 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 2d 117 § 3 (Feb. 2017 Update).
- Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334 (1976).
- Lindahl BA. Physician-patient Relationship—Duty to Third Parties, 2 MODERN TORT LAW: LIABILITY AND LITIGATION § 24:6 (June 2016 Update).
- Pate v. Threlkel, 661 So.2d 278 (Fla. 1995).
- Reisner v. Regents of the University of California, 27 Cal. Rptr. 528 (Cal. 1999).
- Bradshaw v. Daniel, 854 S.W.2d 865 (Tenn. 1993).
- Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 551 P.2d 334, 340 (1976).
- Welke v. Kuzilla, 365 N.W.2d 205 (Mich. Ct. App. 1985).
- Leonard v. State, 491 N.W.2d 508 (Iowa 1992).
- Ropiequet JL. Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress by Health Care Provider, 16 AM. JUR. PROOF OF FACTS 189 § 2 (Feb. 2017 Update).
- Witt v. St. Vincent's Medical Center, 746 A.2d 753 (Conn. 2000).
- Witt v. Yale-New Haven Hospital, 977 A.2d 779, 785 (Conn. Super. 2008).
- Petriello v. Kalman, 576 A.2d 474 (Conn. 1990).
- Faya v. Almaraz, 620 A.2d 327, 335-37 (Ct. App. Md. 1993).
- https://www.acep.org/content.aspx?id=26874 (Accessed on April 10, 2017).
- Herskovits v. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, 664 P.2d 474, 476 (Wash. 1983).
- Tovey JH, Payne A. Liability of Hospital or Other Emergency Room Service Provider for Injury to Patient or Visitor, 67 AM. JUR. TRIALS 271 § 36 (Mar. 2017 Update).
- Villamil v. Benages, 628 N.E.2d 568 (Ill. 1994).
- Pemberton v. Dharmani, 525 N.W.2d 497 (Mich. 1994).
- Veilleux DR. Construction and Application of "Good Samaritan" Statutes, 68 A.L.R. 4th 294 § 17[c] (1989 & Cum. Supp.).
- Velazquez v. Jiminez, 763 A.2d 753 (N.J. 2000).
- Ostrowski v. Azzara, 545 A.2d 148, 154-56 (N.J. 1988).
- Tunkle v. The Regents of the University of California, 383 P.2d 441 (Cal. 1963).
- Ash v. New York University Dental Center, 564 S.2d 308 (N.Y. 1990).
- Shorter v. Drury, 695 P.2d 116 (Wash. 1985).
- Coon v. Nicola, 21 Cal. Rptr.2d 846 (Cal. App. 1993).
- http://guides.library.jhu.edu/c.php?g=202502&p=1335759 (Accessed on March 26, 2017).
- Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, "Privacy Rule," 42 U.S.C. § 1320d et. seq.; 42 C.F.R. § 164.
- Y.G. v. Jewish Hospital, 795 S.W.2d 488 (Mo. 1990).
- Hobbs v. Lopez, 645 N.E.2d 126 (Ohio 1994).
- Joint Commission, R.I. 1.2.2.
- BASIC PRINCIPLES
- Essential elements of negligence cases
- Qualifications of expert witnesses
- Cases that require no expert witness
- - Res ipsa loquitur
- - Admission of responsibility
- - Common knowledge
- - Informed consent
- PHYSICIAN-PATIENT RELATIONSHIP
- Requirements and exceptions
- Duties to third parties
- DERIVATIVE THEORIES OF LIABILITY
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress
- NOVEL THEORIES OF LIABILITY
- Fear of future injury
- Loss of chance of survival
- Standard defenses
- Other defenses
- - Good Samaritan acts
- - Statutes of limitations
- - Comparative negligence
- - Exculpatory clauses
- RECORDS, FRAUD, AND CONFIDENTIALITY
- Breach of confidentiality
- Concealment of errors and fraud
- SUGGESTIONS FOR THE SURGEON WHO IS SUED