Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Medical Malpractice Claims (medical + malpractice_claim)
Selected AbstractsIncidence of and Risk Factors for Medical Malpractice Lawsuits among Mohs SurgeonsDERMATOLOGIC SURGERY, Issue 1 2006CLIFFORD S. PERLIS MD BACKGROUND Despite rising medical malpractice costs, little is known about the factors associated with claims filed against Mohs surgeons. OBJECTIVE We sought to define the scope of medical malpractice claims filed against Mohs surgeons and to identify salient factors associated with the filing and disposition of those claims. METHODS A comprehensive survey was mailed to 599 physicians with US addresses listed in the 2003 directory of the American College of Mohs Micrographic Surgery and Cutaneous Oncology. RESULTS Of the 300 completed surveys returned, 33 (11%) reported ever having been sued. Physicians who practiced Mohs surgery for a longer period of time were more likely to have been sued for malpractice. Physicians reported the wrong site and functional outcome as the most frequent causes of malpractice lawsuits. [source] An Epidemiologic Study of Closed Emergency Department Malpractice Claims in a National Database of Physician Malpractice InsurersACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE, Issue 5 2010Terrence W. Brown MD Abstract Objectives:, The objective was to perform an epidemiologic study of emergency department (ED) medical malpractice claims using data maintained by the Physician Insurers Association of America (PIAA), a trade association whose participating malpractice insurance carriers collectively insure over 60% of practicing physicians in the United States. Methods:, All closed malpractice claims in the PIAA database between 1985 and 2007, where an event in an ED was alleged to have caused injury to a patient 18 years of age or older, were retrospectively reviewed. Study outcomes were the frequency of claims and average indemnity payments associated with specific errors identified by the malpractice insurer, as well as associated health conditions, primary specialty groups, and injury severity. Indemnity payments include money paid to claimants as a result of settlement or court adjudication, and this financial obligation to compensate a claimant constitutes the insured's financial liability. These payments do not include the expenses associated with resolving a claim, such as attorneys' fees. The study examined claims by adjudicatory outcome, associated financial liability, and expenses of litigation. Adjudicatory outcome refers to the legal disposition of a claim as it makes its way into and through the court system and includes resolution of claims by formal verdict as well as by settlement. The study also investigated how the number of claims, average indemnity payments, paid-to-close ratios (the percentage of closed claims that resolved with a payment to the plaintiff), and litigation expenses have trended over the 23-year study period. Results:, The authors identified 11,529 claims arising from an event originating in an ED, representing over $664 million in total liability over the 23-year study period. Emergency physicians (EPs) were the primary defendants in 19% of ED claims. The largest sources of error, as identified by the individual malpractice insurer, included errors in diagnosis (37%), followed by improper performance of a procedure (17%). In 18% of claims, no error could be identified by the insurer. Acute myocardial infarction (AMI; 5%), fractures (6%), and appendicitis (2%) were the health conditions associated with the highest number of claims. Over two-thirds of claims (70%) closed without payment to the claimant. Most claims that paid out did so through settlement (29%). Only 7% of claims were resolved by verdict, and 85% of those were in favor of the clinician. Over time, the average indemnity payments and expenses of litigation, adjusted for inflation, more than doubled, while both the total number of claims and number of paid claims decreased. Conclusions:, Emergency physicians were the primary defendants in a relatively small proportion of ED claims. The disease processes associated with the highest numbers of claims included AMI, appendicitis, and fractures. The largest share of overall indemnity was attributed to errors in the diagnostic process. The financial liability of medical malpractice in the ED is substantial, yet the vast majority of claims resolve in favor of the clinician. Efforts to mitigate risk in the ED should include the diverse clinical specialties who work in this complex environment, with attention to those health conditions and potential errors with the highest risk. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2010; 17:553,560 © 2010 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine [source] Do Defendants Pay What Juries Award?JOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 1 2007Post-Verdict Haircuts in Texas Medical Malpractice Cases Legal scholars, legislators, policy advocates, and the news media frequently use jury verdicts to draw conclusions about the performance of the tort system. However, actual payouts can differ greatly from verdicts. We report evidence on post-verdict payouts from the most comprehensive longitudinal study of matched jury verdicts and payouts. Using data on all insured medical malpractice claims in Texas from 1988,2003 in which the plaintiff received at least $25,000 (in 1988 dollars) following a jury trial, we find that most jury awards received "haircuts." Seventy-five percent of plaintiffs received a payout less than the adjusted verdict (jury verdict plus prejudgment and postjudgment interest), 20 percent received the adjusted verdict (within ± 2 percent), and 5 percent received more than the adjusted verdict. Overall, plaintiffs received a mean (median) per-case haircut of 29 percent (19 percent), and an aggregate haircut of 56 percent, relative to the adjusted verdict. The larger the verdict, the more likely and larger the haircut. For cases with a positive adjusted verdict under $100,000, 47 percent of plaintiffs received a haircut, with a mean (median) per-case haircut of 8 percent (2 percent). For cases with an adjusted verdict larger than $2.5 million, 98 percent of plaintiffs received a haircut with a mean (median) per-case haircut of 56 percent (61 percent). Insurance policy limits are the most important factor in explaining haircuts. Caps on damages in death cases and caps on punitive damages are also important, but defendants often paid substantially less than the adjusted allowed verdict. Remittitur accounts for a small percentage of the haircuts. Punitive damage awards have only a small effect on payouts. Out-of-pocket payments by physicians are rare, never large, and usually unrelated to punitive damage awards. Most cases settle, presumably in the shadow of the outcome if the case were to be tried. That outcome is not the jury award, but the actual post-verdict payout. Because defendants rarely pay what juries award, jury verdicts alone do not provide a sufficient basis for claims about the performance of the tort system. [source] The Impact of Damage Caps on Malpractice Claims: Randomization Inference with Difference-in-DifferencesJOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 1 2007John J. Donohue III We use differences-in-differences (DID) to assess the impact of damage caps on medical malpractice claims for states adopting caps between 1991,2004. We find that conventional DID estimators exhibit acute model sensitivity. As a solution, we offer (nonparametric) covariance-adjusted randomization inference, which incorporates information about cap adoption more directly and reduces model sensitivity. We find no evidence that caps affect the number of malpractice claims against physicians. [source] Placing "Standard of Care" in Context: The Impact of Witness Potential and Attorney Reputation in Medical Malpractice LitigationJOURNAL OF EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUDIES, Issue 3 2006Catherine T. Harris Previous empirical studies have speculated about the role that factors other than negligence play in the resolution of medical malpractice claims. The present study identifies and evaluates the impact of three "strategic variables" in the medical malpractice litigation process: the witness potential of the defendant physician, the witness potential of the plaintiff, and the reputation of the plaintiff's attorney. These factors, unrelated to standard of care, make a difference in the outcome of medical malpractice cases. Data were collected from insurance company files on cases filed in the North Carolina state courts between 1991 and 1995. Analyses revealed that when the insurers' outside (physician) reviewers rated liability as probable, based on standard of care, settlement occurred in most of the cases. However, when liability was rated as uncertain or unlikely, strategic variables such as perceived witness potential and the reputation of the plaintiff's counsel were significant predictors of case outcome. Cases in which the defendant physician had a strategic advantage were much less likely to settle, while cases in which the plaintiff had a strategic advantage were much more likely to settle. [source] "Health Courts" and Accountability for Patient SafetyTHE MILBANK QUARTERLY, Issue 3 2006MICHELLE M. MELLO Proposals that medical malpractice claims be removed from the tort system and processed in an alternative system, known as administrative compensation or ,health courts,' attract considerable policy interest during malpractice ,crises,' including the current one. This article describes current proposals for the design of a health court system and the system's advantages for improving patient safety. Among these advantages are the cultivation of a culture of transparency regarding medical errors and the creation of mechanisms to gather and analyze data on medical injuries. The article discusses the experiences of foreign countries with administrative compensation systems for medical injury, including their use of claims data for research on patient safety; choices regarding the compensation system's relationship to physician disciplinary processes; and the proposed system's possible limitations. [source] | ||||||||||