Placing 'Standard of Care' in Context: The Impact of Witness Potential and Attorney Reputation in Medical Malpractice Litigation

2002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine T. Harris ◽  
Ralph A. Peeples ◽  
Thomas B. Metzloff
Keyword(s):  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
The Impact

Medicolegal Issues in Pathology

2008 ◽  
Vol 132 (2) ◽  
pp. 186-191
Author(s):  
Timothy Craig Allen
Keyword(s):  
Medical Records ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Expert Witness ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Tort Law ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Litigation Process ◽  
Risk Managers ◽  
Medicolegal Issues

Abstract The various methods used by risk managers to assist clinicians in handling medicolegal risk, including improving communication with patients and better dealing with medical records issues, are not particularly of benefit to pathologists. An understanding of tort law, the theory of negligence, the principle of standard of care, and the role of the expert witness helps the pathologist generally assess and manage risk and put it into context with daily pathology practice. An understanding of the litigation process and techniques to better handle a deposition and high-risk specimens or diagnoses are of practical value in avoiding a lawsuit or increasing the likelihood for good outcome in medical malpractice litigation.

The impact of medical malpractice litigation on cardiovascular practice in the US and China

2014 ◽  
Vol 177 (1) ◽  
pp. 48-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marwan Badri ◽  
Amr Abdelbaky ◽  
Gan-Xin Yan ◽  
Peter R. Kowey
Keyword(s):  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
The Us ◽  
The Impact

scholarly journals Damned if you monitor, damned if you don’t: medical malpractice and intraoperative neuromonitoring for spinal surgery

2020 ◽  
Vol 49 (5) ◽  
pp. E19
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Hatef ◽  
Miki Katzir ◽  
Nathaniel Toop ◽  
Monica Islam ◽  
Trevor Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Qualitative Analysis ◽  
Spinal Surgery ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Intraoperative Neuromonitoring ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Damage Award ◽  
Orthopedic Surgeons ◽  
Research Service

OBJECTIVEThe aim of this study was to identify trends in medical malpractice litigation related to intraoperative neuromonitoring.METHODSThe Westlaw Edge legal research service was queried for malpractice litigation related to neuromonitoring in spine surgery. Cases were reviewed to determine if the plaintiff’s assertion of negligence was due to either failure to use neuromonitoring or negligent monitoring. Comparative statistics and a detailed qualitative analysis of the resulting cases were performed.RESULTSTwenty-six cases related to neuromonitoring were identified. Spinal fusion was the procedure in question in all cases, and defendants were nearly evenly divided between orthopedic surgeons and neurosurgeons. Defense verdicts were most common (54%), followed by settlements (27%) and plaintiff verdicts (19%). Settlements resulted in a mean $7,575,000 damage award, while plaintiff verdicts resulted in a mean $4,180,213 damage award. The basis for litigation was failure to monitor in 54% of the cases and negligent monitoring in 46%. There were no significant differences in case outcomes between the two allegations of negligence.CONCLUSIONSThe use and interpretation of intraoperative neuromonitoring findings can be the basis for a medical malpractice litigation. Spine surgeons can face malpractice risks by not monitoring when required by the standard of care and by interpreting or reacting to neuromonitoring findings inappropriately.

Standard of care and liability in medical malpractice litigation in Japan

Health Policy ◽  
2003 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akihito Hagihara ◽  
Minako Nishi ◽  
Koichi Nobutomo
Keyword(s):  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

scholarly journals Medical Liability Erased: How the Protecting Access to Care Act of 2017 Limits Patients’ Access to Proper Care

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben Cohen
Keyword(s):  
Access To Care ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Tort Reform ◽  
Medical Liability ◽  
Malpractice Litigation ◽  
Injured Patients ◽  
The Impact

This paper outlines the severe impact that the Protecting Access to Care Act would have on victims of malpractice who have suffered grave injuries, and also explains how the bill would nearly eliminate patients’ ability to recover damages when doctors or hospitals provide negligent care. Part II of this paper will examine some of the limits that this bill would impose and the impact it would have on injured patients’ ability to recover damages. Part III will describe those entities that are truly driving this bill and what their motives for doing so are. Part IV will clarify some of the misconceptions about tort reform and caps on damages and why the enactment of this bill would ultimately do more harm than good. Finally, Part V will examine the benefits of medical malpractice litigation and why it is imperative to ensure that patients have the ability to find redress in a court of law.

Practice Guidelines

1998 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-62
Author(s):  
Melvin A. Shiffman
Keyword(s):  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cost Containment ◽  
Medical Malpractice ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Standard Of Care ◽  
Malpractice Litigation

Developing clearly written, scientifically valid, and flexible practice guidelines can aid in cost containment and in the resolution of medical malpractice litigation. Practice guidelines should keep in mind both clinicians and patients and should focus on specific clinical circumstances. Deviation from the guidelines should be supported by peer-reviewed medical literature. These guidelines, if properly researched and prepared, may serve as the standard of care.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document