Search

Background: Medical malpractice litigations are common for cardiac surgeons, and congenital cardiac surgeons are uniquely held accountable by patients, who are minors, and their families. Therefore, it is imperative for physicians to be cognizant of clinically effective and legally tenable practices.Methods: The Westlaw legal research service was utilized to collect medical malpractice litigations from 1994 to 2019 pertaining to congenital cardiac surgery, inclusive, in the United States. Court documents were manually screened, with 177 litigations satisfying criteria for inclusion. Data collection included patient demographics, verdict and litigation characteristics, and clinical data. Fisher's exact test was used to assess the significance of association.Results: Across the 177 litigations, 44% had defendant verdicts, 30% had plaintiff verdicts, and 26% had settlements. The average plaintiff award was $9,363,710, and the average settlement was $4,141,825. Patient mortality occurred in 87 cases (49.2%), and wrongful death claims were argued in 71 cases (40%). The most common reason for litigation were procedural errors (79 cases, 45%). The most frequent clinical event was cardiac arrest (95 cases, 54%). California recorded the most litigations (34 cases, 19.2%). Defendant verdicts were significantly associated with cardiac arrest, procedural errors, and permanent neurological injury (p < .05).Conclusions: Defendant's verdicts were more common in cases with patient mortality, which had lower average plaintiff awards and settlements, since future healthcare expenses are inapplicable to this cohort. Future litigations can be minimized with an emphasis on reducing procedural errors, treating and diagnosing patients timely, and monitoring patients sufficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Medical malpractice litigation is an issue of major concern in neurosurgery, with 19.1% of neurosurgeons facing a claim annually. Neurosurgery possesses the greatest risk of malpractice of any specialty, likely owing to the complex clinical environment and disease severity. In the present study, we have characterized such litigation to determine the common factors that compel plaintiffs to file these claims. Methods WestLawNext, a prominent legal database, was used to identify all cases from 1985 to 2016 related to brain tumors. A total of 225 cases were identified, and each was analyzed for the cause of litigation (multiple causes were permitted). Because many had >1 ground for litigation, the reported percentages were based on the total counts of litigation rather than the number of cases. Additional information was collected from each case, including location, tumor type, and physician specialty. Results The cases were distributed across 36 states and U.S. territories: California (n = 42; 20%) and New York (n = 28; 13%) had the greatest number of cases. The top reasons for litigation were failure to diagnose (n = 109; 28%), failure to treat (n = 72; 18%), procedural error (n = 63; 16%), and failure to refer for diagnostic tests (n = 55; 14%). The most common diagnoses included pituitary adenoma (n = 26; 12%), acoustic neuroma (n = 27; 12%), and meningioma (n = 23; 10%). Conclusions Malpractice litigation contributes to high overhead and physician burnout and escalates the cost of patient care. We found that benign brain tumors were the most common in litigation and that surgical issues accounted for only a small percentage. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As many as 98,000 people die each year as a result of medical error. According to law and economics scholars, the solution to this problem is straightforward: When calibrated correctly, medical malpractice liability will force healthcare providers to internalize the cost of their negligence, incentivizing improvements to patient safety that will reduce medical error. Debate has raged for decades over the coherence of deterrence theory, but little attention has been paid to the erosion of one of its bed-rock assumptions: that the procedural mechanism through which claims are to be resolved is litigation. Arbitration has become pervasive in the healthcare context, but its effects on medical malpractice liability's ability to deter medical error have been largely overlooked by public health and legal scholars. This Note argues that the adoption of arbitration will not, as law and economics scholars assume, improve the medical malpractice regime's ability to deter error. In addition to drawing on existing law and economics and public health scholarship to advance this descriptive claim, this Note studies the experience of Kaiser Permanente, the nation's largest integrated healthcare consortium, in using arbitration to resolve medical malpractice disputes with its seven million members in California. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents information on the decisions by the courts regarding the aviation law of the U.S. The district court of California granted the motion to dismiss on the grounds of forum non conveniens wherein the plaintiffs were offered adequate forum by the country where the plane crash took place. Information on the cases judged by the Supreme Court of the U.S. regarding several issues like the Death on the High Seas Act under the law of sea, the educational malpractice doctrine, choice of law and the federal preemption is also presented.

This article addresses issues of liability when a single-payor in a national health care system makes a decision based on a utilization review program that injures the patient as a result. In Part I, the history of Managed Care Organizations (MCOs) is discussed to establish an understanding of the current health care landscape. Part II explains MCOs' use of utilization review to contain costs and analyzes the manner in which courts have addressed the issue of MCO liability for patient injuries sustained from denial of coverage. Finally, Part III concludes that current case law may limit a patient's access to a remedy for injuries sustained from a utilization review decision in a single-payor national health care system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose To inform nurse practitioners (NPs) about the issues related to tort reform and its relationship to malpractice insurance costs Data Sources Current journals, newspapers, professional newsletters, and Internet sites. Conclusions NPs arc paying more for their malpractice premiums, and many are losing their places of employment as clinics close due to the increased COM of premiums. One method proposed for curbing the How of monies spent on premiums and litigation is tort law reform. California serves as an example; its Medical lnjury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA) tort reform law was passed 25 years ago, and it has maintained stable malpractice premiums. Other states have proposed similar laws, but some have not had similar success. To curb litigation costs, not only should tort laws he refomed, but NPs and physicians should keep abreast of current practice standards in order to provide quality medical care. Implications for Practice Like physicians, NPs are affected directly by tort laws. These laws hold NPs accountable at the same level as physicians. In addition, many states limit NPs' practice to delegation of authority by a physician. Liability is therefore transferred from the NI' to the physician and vice versa in cases of injury or wrongful act. In addition, ninny NPs arc finding it increasingly difficult to locate insurers who will write policies for medical liability. Conflict of Interest Disclosure The author has received no funding or financial inducement to write this article. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Analyzes the damage caps imposed on plaintiffs who bring medical malpractice claims against health care providers in California. Examination of developments in the amendment of the Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act (EADACPA) allowing for enhanced remedies; Provisions of the EADACPA; Evaluation of public policies behind California's caps on medical malpractice actions.

Analyzes under what circumstances a lawyer who contractually retains an expert witness may be personally liable to the expert under the law of California. Presentation of the problem through an illustrative typical case; Exploration of variety of potential theories under which an attorney might be held liable.

Abstract: The Los Angeles County (California) physician strike of January 1976 resulted in a partial withdrawal of physician services. Among recorded impacts were a $17.5 million loss in hospital revenues and an $8.5 million pay loss for hospital employees. Several surveys revealed no evidence of a significant impact on the general public in finding medical care. Analysis of emergency room visits and paramedical ambulance calls showed no significant increases during the strike. County mortality statistics for the strike were not affected. Eighty-eight fatalities among 2,171 patients transferred during the strike were analyzed; a Case Attributable Mortality Probability generated on 21 cases selected for final review by a five-physician multispecialist panel indicated that 29 per cent of the Attributable Mortality could be ascribed to the strike itself and 71 per cent to ongoing "patient dumping" from private sector to County hospitals. Even if sample attributable mortality rates were generalized to overall county deaths, the resultant figures are below the estimated range of 55 to 153 deaths that did not occur because of the number of elective operations not performed secondary to the strike. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2003 the Veterinary Medical Board (VMB) of the State of California brought a complaint against Dr. Gloria Dodd for what they alleged was false advertising for the use of homeopathic remedies and the use of radionic devices for the diagnosis and non-local treatment of animals. Unsatisfied with Dodd's compliance the VMB brought the case to court in 2006. There, through in absentia testimony as to Dodd's abilities and my testimony as to the evidence for non-local man-machine interaction and remote viewing and the failure of the complainants to rebut our evidence Dodd was almost completely vindicated. Full vindication came with our appeal to a superior court, which permitted Dodd to continue to practice without the need to personally examine her animal patients. If sustained through appeal by the VMB the case might serve as a precedent for all practitioners of non-local healing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses a legislative bill which would protect benefit prescribers of pain medications in California. Reasons for the passage of the legislation; Role of the Medical Board of California in the creation of treatment guidelines; Development of protocols for criminal conduct.

Discusses the decision of the California Supreme Court on the legality of a mental health counselor's duty to warn. Prediction of dangerousness; Existence of a special relationship between a counselor and client; Determination of a foreseeable victim.

Reports on the decision of the Court of Appeals of California concerning the contingent fee contracts with medical-legal services. Background of the 'Ojeda v. Sharp Cabrillo Hospital' case; Dismissal of the court on arguments that the contingent fee arrangement would encourage perjured expert witness testimony; Implications of the decision for medical malpractice claims.

Reports that an Orange County, California jury awarded a dog owner in a malpractice suit against veterinarians whose actions resulted in the death of his dog. Value of the Labrador Retriever; Background of the lawsuit; Accusations of misdiagnosing the dog's illness, lying about her condition, failing to advise the owner of treatment risks and giving unnecessary and improper medical care that ultimately caused the dog's death.

Reports on a California court's expansion of physicians' duty to warn patients of HIV dangers. Case background; Bases for court's decision.

Focuses on the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' policy-based reasoning in establishing the criteria for dealing with medical malpractice cases brought by minors infected with HIV. Case of Katz versus Children's Hospital of Orange County; Information on the case; Findings of the court.

This article discusses the California Supreme Court case Truman v. Thomas. The two surviving children of a woman who died from cervical cancer sued their family physician for malpractice. They argued that during the nine-year period that the physician cared for them and their mother, he never did a pap smear on the deceased. The physician argued that he repeatedly told the deceased to have a pap smear but she refused. The Supreme Court held that the physician failed to explain to the deceased the risks of not getting a pap smear and, thus, she was not able to make an intelligent decision. The implications of this decision for medical professionals are discussed.

Discusses California Court of Appeal's decision concerning the absolute privilege of hospital peer review committee members against testifying in malpractice suits. Protection of peer review proceedings and records; Protection of the identities of peer review committee members; Improvement in the quality of medical care through peer review.

Reports that the Supreme Court of California has held that a mother can recover emotional distress damages from her obstetrician for breach of the obstetrician's duty to avoid injuring her fetus during delivery. Background of the 'Burgess v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County' case; Bases of the court's decision; Impact of the decision on the medical malpractice insurance crisis.

Discusses the Supreme Court of California's ruling that the statute of limitations for medical malpractice is not tolled when a plaintiff is advised incorrectly by an attorney that she has no legal remedy. Purpose of the malpractice discovery rule; Plaintiff's burden to ascertain whether a medical injury is legally cognizable; Use of reasonable diligence.

Discusses `Physicians Disciplined for Sex-Related Offenses,' and `Physicians Disciplined by a State Medical Board,' from the June 17, 1998, issue of `The Journal of the American Medical Association.' The view that the medical profession is becoming less tolerant of physician misconduct; Increased reporting of physician misconduct by the public; Opinions of physician misconduct from the Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs; The function of state licensing boards as the discipliners of physicians; Education of medical students on ethics.

Reports on the controversy generated by the specialized legal clinic, one that handles lawyer malpractice cases opened in San Diego, California, by lawyer Charles Patrick Harrod. Angry reaction of lawyers to Harrod's advertisement promoting his services; Ejection of Harrod from a local courtroom; Public's interest in Harrod's services.

Reports on the California Supreme Court ruling which upheld a lower court decision in a malpractice lawsuit filed against a lawyer who rendered service in a divorce action. Overview of the case; Causes of the alleged malpractice; Justification of the court's decision.

Presents a court case on patient abandonment in the case Charmain Czubinsky versus the Doctors Hospital in San Diego, California. Accounts of Czubinsky's medical condition; Testimonies of defendants and plaintiff's expert witness; Judge decision overruling the jury's verdict which finds the hospital staff guilty of negligence; Reinstatement of the jury finding by the appeals court.

Discusses the medical malpractice of some nurses in California. Lobbying initiatives of nursing groups and patient advocates based on principles of good patient care; Implementation of low nurse-to-patient ratios; Impact of mandatory nurse-patient ratios.

Reports that physicians in the U.S. are curtailing services in emergency rooms and trauma and maternity centers because increases in malpractice insurance fees are not affordable. Strike of surgeons in West Virginia to protest increasing fees; Focus of the American Medical Association on liability insurance reform; Idea that investment losses of insurance companies have driven them to increase revenue by raising fees; Perception that the solution to the problem is tort reform based on the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of 1975 in California.