Bladder exstrophy-epispadias complex related litigation: A legal database review

Abstract

Objective To review the nature and extent of bladder exstrophy-epispadias related malpractice litigation in the United States. Methods Two legal databases (Nexis Uni, WestLaw) were reviewed for state and federal cases using the terms “bladder exstrophy”, “cloacal exstrophy”, “epispadias”, in combination with “medical malpractice”, or “negligence”, or “medical error”, or “complication”, or “malpractice”, or “tort”. Databases were queried from 1948 to 2022 and reviewed for medical and legal details. Results Our search yielded 16 unique legal cases with 6 fitting established criteria for analysis. Urology and paediatric urologists were named in 50% of cases as were community medical systems. Cause for lawsuit included negligence in surgical performance (50%), primary closure of exstrophy (33%), and post-operative care (50%). Settlement agreement was reached in one case (17%). Outcomes favoured the physician in 60% of trials. Lawsuits alleging negligent surgical performance and/or post-operative care exclusively named urologists with outcomes favouring the surgeon in 66% of cases. The settlement payment (n = 1) was $500,000 and monetary damages (n = 1) equated to $1.3 million. Conclusions Malpractice litigation related to BEEC treatment is rare. Trial outcomes favour the medical provider. Cases that resulted in financial liability successfully alleged avoidable negligence resulting in irreversible physical damage. The authors recommend families with BEEC seek board-certified paediatric urologists experienced in treating this complex and/or Bladder Exstrophy Centers of Excellence. Further, we recommend surgeons treating BEEC properly educate patients and families on the severity of this major birth defect including its lifelong implications and need for surgical revisions.